Disposed

Kolluri Paul S/o.Late Israel v. The State of Telangana

Telangana HC1 Jul 2016WP/21438/2016

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court disposed of a writ petition filed under Article 226 at the admission stage with the consent of both parties. The court directed Respondent No. 2 to dispose of the petitioners' representation regarding illegal construction and to ensure affected parties are heard.

What did the court decide?

Direction to Respondent No. 2 to dispose of the petitioners' representation regarding illegal construction within six weeks after hearing affected parties.

Kolluri Paul S/o.Late Israel Vs The State… — Public Procurement and Tenders | Telangana HC (2016)

¶1

THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE C.PRAVEEN KUMAR

¶2

WRIT PETITION No. 21438 of 2016

¶3

ORDER:

¶4

Heard learned counsel for the petitioners, learned Government Pleaders for Revenue and Home.

¶5

With the consent of both parties, the writ petition is disposed of at the admission stage.

¶6

The present writ petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution

¶7

of India, for the following relief:

¶8

‘To issue an appropriate writ, order or direction more particularly, one in the nature of writ of Mandamus declaring the inaction of respondent No.2 in initiating appropriate action in pursuance to petitioners’ representation dated 21.06.2016 as highly illegal, arbitrary, malafide, unconstitutional and consequently direct respondent No.2 to forthwith initiate appropriate action against all concerned in pursuance of the petitioners’ representation dated 21.06.2016 and further direct respondent Nos.2 and 3 herein not to dispossess the petitioners from their land to an extent of 650 square yards (out of 35 guntas) situated in plot bearing No. 743/34, beside municipal number 16-7-106 in Survey No.2 situated at Girmajipet Village, Hanmakonda Mandal, Hanmakonda Taluk, Warangal District and to pass such other order or orders as this Hon’ble Court may deem fit and proper in the circumstances of the case’.

¶9

Though various grounds are raised, learned counsel for the petitioners restricts his prayer seeking a direction to respondent No.2 to dispose of the representation dated 21.06.2016, made by the petitioners, at the earliest.

¶10

Without going into merits of the case and having regard to the facts in issue, the writ petition is disposed of directing respondent No.2 to dispose of the representation dated 21.06.2016, made by the petitioners with regard to illegal construction raised in H.No.743/34, situated in Survey No.2 of Laxmipuram Village of Girmajipet, Village, Hanmakonda Mandal, Hanmakonda Taluk, Warangal District, as early as possible, preferably within a period of six weeks from the date of receipt

¶11

of a copy of the order, in accordance with law. It is needless to mention that the said order shall be passed after hearing the affected parties including the petitioners.

¶12

Miscellaneous petitions, pending if any, shall stand closed in the light of this final order. No order as to costs.

¶13

______________________ JUSTICE C.PRAVEEN KUMAR

¶14

01.07.2016, vhb

Kolluri Paul S/o.Late Israel v. The State of Telangana

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Kolluri Paul S/o.Late Israel 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

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Mruthinti Ramakrishna Sastry, Vs State of Andhra Pradesh, rep.by its Principal Secretary

Md. Yahiya Pasha Vs The State of Telangana

Rajendra Prasad alias Raju Vs State of Telangana

Nimma Venkateswara Rao, Vs The State of Andhra Pradesh

Ch. Anuradha , B. Vani, Vs The State of Telangana

Saibaba Movieland Vs State of Andhra Pradesh