Disposed

Annabattula Venkata Ramana Murthy v. State of Andhra Pradesh, rep. by its Principal Secretary

Telangana HC20 Jun 2016WP/18190/2016

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This is a writ petition where the court, at the admission stage, disposed of the matter by directing the first respondent to consider the petitioner's representation dated 27.04.2016 expeditiously within ten days in accordance with law.

What did the court decide?

Directed the first respondent to consider the petitioner's representation dated 27.04.2016 within ten days.

Annabattula Venkata Ramana Murthy Vs State of… — Writ and Judicial Review | Telangana HC (2016)

¶1

HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE C. PRAVEEN KUMAR

¶2

WRIT PETITION No. 18190 OF 2016

¶3

ORDER:

¶4

Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and Government Pleader for Mines and Geology. With the consent of both parties, the writ petition is taken up for disposal at the admission stage itself.

¶5

The present writ petition came to be filed with the following prayer:

¶6

“Issue a writ of mandamus declaring and setting aside the proceedings dated 04.05.2016 in Memo No.158/M.III(2)/2015 on the file of the first respondent, as illegal, arbitrary and contrary to the directions issued by this Hon’ble Court in W.P.No.31675 of 2014 dated 21.10.2014, PIL No.261 of 2015, dated 27.11.2015 and W.P.No.3313 of 2016, dated 15.02.2016; and consequently direct the first respondent to re-consider the representation dated made by the petitioner on 27.04.2016, which was received in the office of the first respondent on 29.04.2016 and grant permission to him to decast sand from his patta land admeasuring Ac.17.76 cents in Sy.Nos. 53, 54 and 55 of L.Gannavaram Village, P.Gannavaram Mandal, East Godavari District and transport the same as per Memo No.833/SPIU & SAND/A1/2014-1, dated 22.01.2014 and Memo dated 25.11.2014 in Memo No. 10763/M-IV(V)/20142 on the file of the first respondent.”

¶7

Though various grounds are raised in the writ petition, learned counsel for the petitioner restricts his prayer seeking a direction to the authorities to consider the representation dated 27.04.2016 made by the petitioner, as the request of the person similarly situated was considered.

¶8

The Government Pleader for Mines and Geology though opposes the same, however states that having regard to the facts in issue, the said representation will be considered in accordance with law.

¶9

Accordingly, the writ petition is disposed of directing the first respondent to consider the representation dated 27.04.2016 made by the petitioner, in accordance with law, as expeditiously as possible, preferably within a period of ten (10) days from today by taking into consideration all the orders passed by this Court, earlier. No order as to costs.

¶10

Consequently, miscellaneous petitions, if any, pending in this Writ Petition shall stand closed.

¶11

_________________________ JUSTICE C. PRAVEEN

¶12

KUMAR

¶13

20.06.2016 Note: Issue C.C. in four days. B/o gkv

Annabattula Venkata Ramana Murthy v. State of Andhra Pradesh, rep. by its Principal Secretary

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Annabattula Venkata Ramana Murthy v. State of Andhra Pradesh, rep. by its Principal 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

Y.Mohammed Ghouse, S/o. Haji Saheb Vs The State of Andhra Pradesh

M. Chandraiah, Vs The State of Telangana

Mrs. Kesaraju Divya Vs The State of Telangana, Rep by its Principle Secretary for

Nellore Lakshmi Narsa Reddy Vs The State of A.P

M. Badradri Rami Reddy Vs The State of Telangana

Chirra Prasada Rao, Vs The State of Andhra Pradesh, rep.by its Principal Secretary