Disposed

T. Linga Murthy, v. The State of Telangana, Rep. by its Secretary

Telangana HC28 Apr 2016WP/15026/2016

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This writ petition sought mandamus against the Greater Warangal Municipal Corporation for inaction on representations regarding a road project. The court issued a direction requiring the authority to consider the representations and act expeditiously within four weeks, without adjudicating merits.

What did the court decide?

Direction issued to respondent authorities to consider pending representations and take appropriate action within four weeks.

T. Linga Murthy, Vs The State of Telangana… — Public Procurement and Tenders | Telangana HC (2016)

¶1

THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE SANJAY KUMAR WRIT PETITION No.15026 of 2016

¶2

ORDER:

¶3

Heard Sri J. Venkateshwar Reddy, learned counsel for the petitioners, and Smt. Pingali Lakshmi, learned Standing Counsel for the Greater Warangal Municipal Corporation.

¶4

The prayer of the petitioners in this case is as under:

¶5

“For the reasons stated in the accompanying affidavit, it is hereby prayed that this Hon’ble Court may be pleased to issue a writ, order or direction more particularly one in the nature of writ of mandamus, to declare the inaction of the Respondents No.1 to 5 in not taking action against the 6^th Respondent in pursuance to the representations dt. 31-10-2011, 15-03-2015, 22-06-2015 as illegal, arbitrary and consequently direct the Respondents to complete 40 feet Master Plan Road (Link Road) from 100 feet wide Road to Teacher’s Colony situated at Hanmakonda, Warangal District in the interest of justice and to pass such other order or orders may deem fit and proper in the circumstances of the case.”

¶6

It appears that the petitioners made representations dated 31.10.2011, 15.03.2015 and 22.06.2015 to the respondent authorities and the same are pending consideration.

¶7

In the light of the order proposed to be passed by this Court, there is no necessity to put the unofficial respondent on notice as this Court is not venturing to adjudicate any issue on merits.

¶8

As the representations dated 31.10.2011, 15.03.2015 and 22.06.2015 made by the petitioners are yet to be acted upon, it is for the authority concerned to apply its mind to the said representations and take action thereon, if warranted, in accordance with the due procedure. In this exercise, the authority would necessarily have to give an opportunity of hearing to all the parties who would be affected by any decision taken upon the petitioners’ representations. Adhering

¶9

to this procedure, the authority concerned shall duly consider the petitioners’ representations dated 31.10.2011, 15.03.2015 and 22.06.2015 and take appropriate action in the matter, if warranted, in accordance with law. This exercise shall be completed expeditiously and in any event, not later than four weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.

¶10

The writ petition is disposed of with the above directions. Pending miscellaneous petitions, if any, shall stand closed in the light of this final order. No order as to costs.

¶11

____________________ JUSTICE SANJAY KUMAR 28^th April, 2016 IBL/PGS

T. Linga Murthy, v. The State of Telangana, Rep. by its Secretary

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

T. Linga Murthy, v. The State of Telangana, Rep. by its Secretary

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

Abdul Rehman, Vs The State of Telangana

Mr. Abbas Sami S/o. Mohammed Mustafa, Vs The State of Telangana, Rep. by its Principal Secretary

Keerthi Kiran Kota, Vs The State of Andhra Pradesh

G.Dhanalakshmi Vs Prl.Secretary Mines and Geology Hyd. and 6 Others

Mohammed Omer Iqbal, Vs The State of Telangana

S.Chandra Mouli, Vs the State of Telangana