Dismissed

Smt. Chilukuri Seetharavamma, v. State of Telangana

Telangana HC4 Jun 2015WP/9413/2015

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This court disposed of a writ petition by granting the petitioner liberty to make a representation to the Deputy Commissioner within two weeks. The court directed the respondent to consider the representation on merits within four weeks and imposed a stay on coercive action pending such consideration.

What did the court decide?

Liberty to make representation; direction to respondent to consider it within four weeks; stay on coercive action pending decision.

Smt. Chilukuri Seetharavamma, Vs State of Telangana — Writ and Judicial Review | Telangana HC (2015)

¶1

HON’BLE THE ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE DILIP B. BHOSALE

¶2

AND

¶3

THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE S.V. BHATT

¶4

Writ Petition No. 9413 of 2015

¶5

DATED:04.06.2015

¶6

Between: Smt. Chilukuri Seetharavamma, Hyderabad. And

¶7

… Petitioner

¶8

The State of Telangana, Represented by its Principal Secretary, Department of Municipal Administration and Urban Development, Hyderabad and others.

¶9

….Respondents

¶10

HON’BLE THE ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE DILIP B. BHOSALE

¶11

AND

¶12

THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE S.V. BHATT

¶13

Writ Petition No. 9413 of 2015

¶14

PC: (Per the Hon’ble the Acting Chief Justice Dilip B. Bhosale)

¶15

Heard learned counsel for the parties.

¶16

Learned counsel for the petitioner, on instructions, does not press this writ petition and submits that the petitioner will be satisfied if she is given liberty to make a representation to respondent No.3-Deputy Commissioner, Greater Hyderabad Municipal Corporation, within a period of two weeks from today for redressal of her grievance. He further prays for a direction to respondent No.3 to consider her representation within time frame and till then, no coercive action be taken against her.

¶17

Learned counsel for respondent Nos. 2 and 3 submits that respondent No.3 shall consider the petitioner’s representation.

¶18

Having considered submissions of the counsel for the parties, we are satisfied that the writ petition can be conveniently disposed of by the following order:

¶19

“It is open to the petitioner to make a representation, as aforementioned, within a period of two weeks from today for redressal of her grievance. If the petitioner makes the representation, respondent No.3 shall consider the same on merits, in accordance with law, within a period of four weeks therefrom. Till the representation is heard and decided by respondent No.3, no coercive action against be taken against the petitioner.”

¶20

With the above directions, the writ petition is disposed of.

¶21

Consequently, miscellaneous petitions, if any, also stand disposed of.

¶22

DILIP B. BHOSALE, ACJ

¶23

S.V. BHATT, J

¶24

4^th June, 2015

¶25

Pnb

Smt. Chilukuri Seetharavamma, v. State of Telangana

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Smt. Chilukuri Seetharavamma, v. State of Telangana

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Choppa Venkateswarlu Vs The State of Andhra Pradesh

Nennela Narsaiah, Vs The State of Telangana, Represented by its Secretary

The Registrar, Jawaharlal Nehru Technological Vs G. Shiva Krishna

Anji Reddy Nagar Welfare Association (Regd.) Vs The Government of Andhra Pradesh

M/s. Panyam Cements and Mineral-Industries Limited, Vs The Grampanchayat

The Metropolitan Commissioner, Vs L.Bharath Reddy