Dismissed

Sri Gundavarapu Venkateshwarlu, v. The State of Andhra Pradesh

Telangana HC1 Dec 2015WP/38980/2015

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Petitioners challenging apprehension of additional franchise grants were not entertained. Court permitted a representation based on population norms guidelines under G.O.Ms.No.45, 2012, before allowing any further consideration of the matter. Petition dismissed.

What did the court decide?

Petitioners permitted to file a representation regarding population norms; no further orders on allotment at this stage.

Sri Gundavarapu Venkateshwarlu, Vs The State of… — Service and Employment | Telangana HC (2015)

¶1

The Hon’ble Sri Justice C.V.Nagarjuna Reddy

¶2

Writ Petition No.38980 of 2015

¶3

Dated 01.12.2015

¶4

Between:

¶5

Gundavarapu Venkateshwarlu and another

¶6

… Petitioners

¶7

and

¶8

State of Andhra Pradesh rep. by its Prl.Secretary Dept., of Informatin Technology, Hyderabad and 5 others.

¶9

…Respondents

¶10

Counsel for the petitioners: Mr.Bethi Venkateshwarlu

¶11

Counsel for respondent Nos.1 & 2: GP for Information & Technology (AP)

¶12

Counsel for respondent Nos.3 & 4: AGP for Revenue (AP)

¶13

The Court made the following:

¶14

O r d e r :

¶15

The petitioners, who are franchisees of Mee-Seva Centers in Gudlur Village, Prakasham District, filed this Writ Petition on an apprehension that respondent No.3 may grant additional franchises in the said Village.

¶16

The only basis for the petitioners’ apprehension is the purported hall ticket issued to six candidates for screening test in the month of January, 2015. It is not the pleaded case of the petitioners that, on coming to know about this information, they have approached respondent No.3 with a representation not to grant additional francises in Gudlur Village having regard to the population norm of 5000 for each center. Therefore, I am not inclined to entertain this Writ Petition at this stage. The petitioners are, however, permitted to make a representation to respondent No.3 with a request to him to follow the guidelines prescribed vide G.O.Ms.No.45 Information Technology & Communications (INFRA) Department, dated 09-10-2012. If such a representation is filed, respondent No.3 shall consider the same, before taking a decision on allotment of additional franchises for running Mee-Seva centers at Gudlur Village.

¶17

Subject to the above direction, the Writ Petition is dismissed.

¶18

As a sequel to dismissal of the Writ Petition, WPMP.No.50230 of 2015, filed by the petitioner for interim relief, is disposed of as infructuous.

¶19

(C.V.Nagarjuna Reddy, J)

¶20

Dt: 1^st December, 2015

¶21

LUR

Sri Gundavarapu Venkateshwarlu, v. The State of Andhra Pradesh

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sri Gundavarapu Venkateshwarlu, v. The State of Andhra Pradesh

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Palthiya Lachiram, Vs The State of Telangana

Sree Ayyappa Devasthanam, Vs the State of Telangana

Kancharana Raghu, Vs The State of Andhra Pradesh

Smt. S.G. Sailaja, Vs The State of Andhra Pradesh, rep. by the Principal Secretary

Gaddam Gopal Reddy S/o. late Ramana Reddy, Vs . The Andhra Pradesh State Wakf Board, Rep. by its

Lakshmi Suri, Vs The State of Telangana