Partly allowed

B. Subba Rao v. The State of Telangana

Telangana HC21 Jun 2016WP/19674/2016

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court directed the respondent executive magistrate to consider and dispose of the petitioner's representations within 10 days to implement a prior injunction order regarding property disputes, dismissing the broader writ petition otherwise.

What did the court decide?

Direction to consider representations for implementing prior injunction order within 10 days; disposal of Writ Petition.

B. Subba Rao Vs The State of Telangana — Writ and Judicial Review | Telangana HC (2016)

¶1

THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE C.PRAVEEN KUMAR

¶2

WRIT PETITION No. 19674 of 2016

¶3

ORDER :

¶4

Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Assistant Government Pleader for Home for the State of Telangana. At the request of both the counsel, the Writ Petition itself is taken up for disposal at the stage of admission.

¶5

2. The present Writ Petition came to be filed with the following prayer:

¶6

“… to issue a writ, order or direction, one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus directing the respondents 2 to 4 to grant police aid to the petitioner in respect of his property admeasuring Ac.2.20 guntas and Ac.1.20 guntas consisting of two different parts in the same Sy. No.57 situated at Shamshiguda Village, Kukatpalli, GHMC Circle, Bala Nagar Mandal, Ranga Reddy District to implement the order of injunction passed in I.A. No.357 of 2015 in O.S. No.199 of 2015 on the file of the Court of the Additional Junior Civil Judge, Kukatpally at Miyapur and pass..”

¶7

3. Though various grounds are raised in the Writ Petition, learned counsel for the petitioner restricts his prayer seeking direction to respondent No.4 to consider the representations dated 08.03.2016 and 29.03.2016 made by the petitioner for implementation of the order dated 27.08.2015 in I.A. No.448 of 2015 in I.A. No.357 of

¶8

2015 in O.S. No.199 of 2015 on the file of the Additional Junior Civil Judge, Kukatpalli at Miyapur. Learned Assistant Government Pleader submits that respondent No.4 has to take appropriate decision on the representations made by the petitioner.

¶9

4. In view of the submissions made and having regard to the circumstances of the case, respondent No.4 is directed to consider and dispose of the representations dated 08.03.2016 and 29.03.2016 made by the petitioner for implementation of the order dated 27.08.2015 in I.A. No.448 of 2015 in I.A. No.357 of 2015 in O.S. No.199 of 2015 on the file of the Additional Junior Civil Judge, Kukatpalli at Miyapur in accordance with law, as expeditiously as possible preferably within a period of 10 days from the date of receipt of a copy of this Order.

¶10

5. The Writ Petition is disposed of with the aforesaid direction. Miscellaneous petitions pending, if any, in the Writ Petition shall stand closed in the light of this final order. No order as to costs.

¶11

______________________ C.PRAVEEN KUMAR, J

¶12

21.06.2016 DRK

¶13

THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE C.PRAVEEN KUMAR

¶14

W.P.No.19674 of 2016

¶15

21.06.2016

B. Subba Rao v. The State of Telangana

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

B. Subba Rao 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

Nellore Lakshmi Narsa Reddy Vs The State of A.P

M. Badradri Rami Reddy Vs The State of Telangana

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

Rajesh Reddy Vankuri, Vs The Government of Andhra Pradesh

Dhrudala Raghavender, Vs The Government of Andhra Pradesh,Rep by its Principal

Smt. P.Nagamani Kumari Vs The State of Andhra Pradesh