Court disposed of a writ petition challenging a notice inviting objections to property tax enhancement. Ordered the authority to decide the petitioners' representation within a time frame.
Direct to decide the petitioners' representation within a specified time frame.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
HON’BLE THE ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE DILIP B. BHOSALE
AND HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE P. NAVEEN RAO
WRIT PETITION No. 4953 OF 2016
19-02-2016
Between:
Kallepelli Pranayadeep and another
… Petitioners
And
The State of Telangana, rep., by the Principal Secretary to the Municipal Administration and Urban Development Department, Secretariat, Hyderabad and others
… Respondents
HON’BLE THE ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE DILIP B. BHOSALE AND HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE P. NAVEEN RAO
WRIT PETITION No. 4953 OF 2016
PC: (per the Hon’ble the Acting Chief Justice Dilip B. Bhosale)
The writ petition impugns notice dated 11-03-2015, which is general in nature, inviting objections by way of representations from the concerned.
Sri Prabhakar, learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the petitioners have already made a representation raising objection to the enhancement of property tax. He submits, till today, the petitioners are not communicated any order passed by the concerned authority. In view thereof, he seeks direction to concerned authority to decide the notice, taking into consideration the representation made by the petitioners, within time frame.
Sri Praveen Kumar, learned Standing Counsel for respondent No.3 submits that he is not aware whether the notice has been decided. He, therefore, submits that if it is already decided, the concerned authority shall communicate its decision to the petitioners within a period of four weeks from today and if the notice has not been decided so far, he submits that the concerned authority shall decide the same within a period of eight weeks from today. His submission is recorded and accepted.
In view thereof, nothing further survives in the writ petition. It is open to the petitioners to challenge the order of the concerned authority, if it is adverse to them.
The writ petition is accordingly disposed of.
Miscellaneous petitions, if any, also stand disposed of.
_________________________ DILIP B. BHOSALE, ACJ
________________________ P. NAVEEN RAO, J 19-02-2016 ks
Kallepelli Pranayadeep and another
The State of Telangana, rep., by the Principal Secretary to the Municipal Administration and Urban Development Department, Secretariat, Hyderabad and others
DILIP B. BHOSALE
P. NAVEEN RAO
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
