Disposed

J.E.Lakshminarayana v. The State of A.P.

Telangana HC17 Aug 2015WP/28612/2011

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In this writ petition, the High Court directed the respondent authority to consider the petitioner's explanation filed within a week and pass appropriate orders, noting that the authority had incorrectly returned the explanation. The petition was disposed with no direction on costs.

What did the court decide?

Petitioner permitted to file explanation again within 4 weeks; respondent authority directed to consider it and pass appropriate orders.

J.E.Lakshminarayana Vs The State of A.P. — Telangana HC (2015) — LawSathi Research

¶1

HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE A.RAJASHEKER REDDY

¶2

W.P.No.28612 OF 2011

¶3

O R D E R

¶4

This writ petition is filed questioning the notice dated 22.09.2011 wherein it was alleged that petitioner is making constructions without obtaining necessary permission and was asked to produce the copies of the permissions/evidence obtained from the concerned departments within fifteen and to show cause why the constructions shall not be removed.

¶5

The case of the petitioner is that though the petitioner filed his explanation on 26.09.2011 and send it to the respondents through registered post, the respondents having received the same, send it back to the petitioner stating that it was not sent to the correct address.

¶6

Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Standing counsel for the respondents.

¶7

No doubt, counter is filed stating that petitioner has made constructions illegally and some survey was also conducted. But it is stated that in pursuance of the notice issued by the respondents, the petitioner has filed explanation on 26.09.2011 and the respondents having received the same should have considered and passed orders in accordance with law. In stead of doing the same, the respondents have returned the explanation filed by the petitioner.

¶8

In view of the same, I am not going into the merits of the case as it is for the 1^st respondent to consider the explanation of the petitioner. Therefore, the petitioner is permitted to file explanation once again within a period of four (4) weeks from today before the 1^st respondent and the 1^st respondent shall consider the same and pass appropriate orders in accordance with law. If the petitioner fails to file explanation within the aforesaid period, it is open for the 1^st respondent to take action as per law.

¶9

With the above direction, the writ petition is disposed. There shall be no order as to costs.

¶10

As a sequel, miscellaneous petitions pending if any, shall stand

¶11

closed.

¶12

___________________________ A.RAJASHEKER REDDY,J Date: 17.08.2015 CC by one week (B/o) dv

J.E.Lakshminarayana v. The State of A.P.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

J.E.Lakshminarayana v. The State of A.P.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

N.Ramesh, Vs Sri D.Sambasiva Rao, I.A.S

B.Rama Krishnudu Vs G.Lakshmi Devi

M. Thimma Reddy, Vs R.Seethamma , Seetha Lakshmi

K.V. Reddy, Vs Mr. Q.v.Nageswara Rao

G.Subrahmanyam Vs The Regional Joint Commissioner, Endowments

S. Shivarajamma, Vs The District Collector