Disposed

Balaji Biradar s/o Dhanji Rao Biradar, v. The State of Telangana, rep. by its

Telangana HC15 Jun 2016WP/18691/2016

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Single Judge disposed of three writ petitions by directing the Greater Hyderabad Municipal Corporation and the Municipal Administration Department to pass orders on explanations submitted by petitioners regarding show cause notices, within six weeks, and to grant a personal hearing before taking action against the furniture workshops.

What did the court decide?

Directed respondents to pass orders on explanations and grant personal hearing within six weeks.

Balaji Biradar s/o Dhanji Rao Biradar, Vs The State… — Service and Employment | Telangana HC (2016)

¶1

THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE C. PRAVEEN KUMAR

¶2

WRIT PETITION Nos.18691, 18701 and 18712 OF 2016

¶3

COMMON ORDER:

¶4

Since the issue involved in all the writ petitions is one and the same, all the writ petitions are disposed of by way of common order.

¶5

2. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioners, learned Government Pleader for Municipal Administration and Urban Development Department and Sri P.Kesava Rao, learned Standing Counsel for Greater Hyderabad Municipal Corporation. With consent of the counsel appearing for both sides, the present writ petition is disposed of at the admission stage.

¶6

3. The present writ petitions came to be filed seeking issuance of writ of mandamus declaring the action of the respondent authorities in threatening to close down the petitioners’ Furniture Maker Workshops bearing Door Nos.12-1-490/40/A/33, 32 and 39 situated at Jagdamba Nagar, Asif Nagar, Hyderabad, without passing any orders on the explanations dated 06.06.2016 submitted by the petitioners to the show cause notices dated 04.06.2016, as illegal and arbitrary and consequently, to direct the respondent authorities to forthwith provide the Trade Licence to the petitioners’ workshop by receiving the requisite amount.

¶7

4. Learned counsel for the petitioners mainly submits that though the petitioners gave explanations on 06.06.2016 to the show cause notices dated 04.06.2016, the respondent authorities are trying to close down the shops of the petitioners without

¶8

passing any orders on the explanations submitted by them.

¶9

5. Learned Standing Counsel for GHMC submits that any action of the Corporation would be in accordance with law and the allegation of illegal closing of the shops of the petitioners by the Corporation authorities is not correct.

¶10

6. Having regard to the facts in issue, all the Writ Petitions are disposed of directing the respondents to pass orders on the explanations dated 06.06.2016 said to have been submitted by the petitioners to the show cause notices dated 04.06.2016 as early as possible preferably within a period of six (06) weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this Order, in accordance with law. Needless to mention that the respondent-Corporation shall also give an opportunity of personal hearing of the petitions before passing any orders to the explanations. The respondents shall not take any steps contrary to the provisions of law.

¶11

Consequently, Miscellaneous Petitions, if any, pending in this writ petition shall stand closed. There shall be no order as to costs.

¶12

_______________________ JUSTICE C. PRAVEEN KUMAR

¶13

Date:15.06.2016 INL

Balaji Biradar s/o Dhanji Rao Biradar, v. The State of Telangana, rep. by its

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Balaji Biradar s/o Dhanji Rao Biradar, v. The State of Telangana, rep. by its

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

Appanna Naga Venkata Sai Anand, Vs The Station House Officer, Women Police Station

Association of Christian Professional Colleges, Vs State of Telangana, Rep.by its Principal Secretary

Kavali Karunakar Vs The State of Telangana

M/s Lkp Infra Projects, Vs The State of Telangana

Immadi settyAjay Babu Vs The State of Andhra Pradesh

Chiliveru Bharath Kumar, Vs The State of Telangana, Rep. by its Principal Secretary