Dismissed

T.Jeevan Reddy v. The State of Telangana

Telangana HC22 Jul 2016WP/18145/2016

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court dismissed a writ petition challenging the non-declaration of 21 mandals in Karimnagar District as drought affected. The bench held that the matter had been considered by the drought committee using Ministry guidelines and that relief had already been provided via NABARD grants, finding no merits in the petition.

What did the court decide?

The writ petition was dismissed after the court found no merits in the case following the drought committee's report.

T.Jeevan Reddy Vs The State of… — Constitutional and Fundamental Rights | Telangana HC (2016)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT HYDERABAD FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AND STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH

¶2

THE HON’BLE THE ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE DILIP B.BHOSALE &

¶3

THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE A.V. SESHA SAI

¶4

WRIT PETITION No.18145 of 2016

¶5

Dated: 22.07.2016

¶6

WRIT PETITION No.18145 of 2016:

¶7

BETWEEN

¶8

T. Jeevan Reddy, S/o. Ramachandra Reddy, Occ; Agriculture, and MLA Jagtial Assembly Constituency, Karimnagar District.

¶9

…PETITIONER

¶10

AND

¶11

The State of Telangana, Rep. by its Principal Secretary to Government, Revenue (DM) Department, Telangana Secretariat, Hyderabad and others.

¶12

… RESPONDENTS

¶13

THE HON’BLE THE ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE DILIP B.BHOSALE

¶14

¶15

THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE A.V. SESHA SAI

¶16

WRIT PETITION No.18145 of 2016

¶17

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

¶18

Heard Ms. K.V. Rajasree, learned counsel for petitioner and

¶19

Mr. A. Sanjeev Kumar, learned Special Government Pleader for respondents 1 to 4.

¶20

2. This writ petition seeks the following relief:

¶21

“For the reasons stated in the accompanying affidavit, the petitioner herein prays that this Hon’ble Court may be pleased to issue a Writ, order or direction, more particularly one in the nature of a Writ of Mandamus declaring the action of second respondent in issuing impugned order bearing Lr.No.1273/DM.II.A1/2015 dated 09.05.2016 in not declaring the 21 left over mandals of Karimnagar District, Telangana State as draught affected mandals as arbitrary, illegal and set aside the same and consequently direct the respondents to reconsider and declare the 21 left over mandals of Karimnagar District, Telangana State as draught effected mandals …”

¶22

3. The petitioner had earlier filed WP.No.2442 of 2016 and that was

¶23

disposed of with the following observations in the order dated 01.02.2016:

¶24

“Sri S. Satyam Reddy submits that the petitioner would be satisfied if directions are given to the Committee referred to in G.O.Ms.No.6, Revenue (DM.II) Department, dated 24.11.2015, to consider his representation dated 01.12.2015, whereby the petitioner is seeking declaration of 21 mandals of Karimnagar District, Telangana State, as drought affected mandals. He submits that the petitioner’s representation may also be directed to be considered in the light of the resolution passed by the Zilla Praja Parishad, whereby the Zilla Praja Parishad has

¶25

recommended for declaring 21 mandals, referred to in the prayer clause, as drought affected mandals.

¶26

Learned Advocate General submits that the Committee shall consider the representation dated 01.12.2015 in the light of the unanimous resolution dated 12.12.2015 passed by the Zilla Praja Parishad, as per the policy and guidelines, within a period of three weeks from today. His submission is recorded and accepted.

¶27

We thus, hope and trust that the Committee shall take a decision within three weeks from today and communicate the same to the petitioner. We hope that the Committee shall not reject the prayer in the representation on technicality and shall verify whether irrigation projects in these mandals actually have water.”

¶28

4. We are informed that in view of the aforesaid order, the drought

¶29

committee considered the case of 21 mandals as per manual for Drought Management given by the Ministry of Agriculture, Government of India and observed that no further mandals need be declared as drought affected. It is not in dispute that the writ petition pertains to the period 2015-2016. The Government had received grants from NABARD for disbursement before October 2015 and, in fact, the same was disbursed. In view thereof and

¶30

having considered the report of committee, we find no merits in the writ petition.

¶31

The writ petition is dismissed. As a sequel, the miscellaneous applications, if any pending, shall stand closed.

¶32

DILIP B.BHOSALE, HACJ

¶33

A.V. SESHA SAI, J

¶34

July 22, 2016 DSK

T.Jeevan Reddy v. The State of Telangana

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

T.Jeevan Reddy v. The 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

E.Ram Reddy Vs The Commissioner and Special Officer

K. Aruna Vs The Greater Hyderabad Municipal Corporation

P.Panduranga Raju, Vs Sri Durga Malleswara Swamy Temple, Rep. by its Executive

Babulal Prajapathi Vs The State of Telangana

The State of Telangana Vs Mr. Rajendra Agarwal S/o. Late P.D.Agarwal

M/s.Penna Cement Industries Ltd., Vs Union of India