Disposed

Anjuman-e-Khadimul Muslimeen, v. The State of Telangana, Rep. by its Principal Secretary

Telangana HC17 Mar 2016WP/8824/2016

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

A writ petition challenging a demand notice issued by the Deputy Commissioner of GHMC was disposed of as not pressed. The court granted liberty to the petitioner to file a complaint under Section 220 of the Greater Hyderabad Municipal Corporation Act, 1955.

What did the court decide?

Liberty to file a complaint under Section 220 of the Act within ten days, with directions to the respondent to decide it on merits within four weeks.

Anjuman-e-Khadimul Muslimeen, Vs The State of… — Service and Employment | Telangana HC (2016)

¶1

HON’BLE THE ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE DILIP B. BHOSALE AND HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE P. NAVEEN RAO

¶2

WRIT PETITION No. 8824 OF 2016

¶3

17-03-2016

¶4

Between:

¶5

Anjuman-e-Khadimul Muslimeen, rep., by its Secretary, Syed Badruddin Quadri, Mutavalli, S/o. Janab Khadar Mohiuddin Quadri, aged about 60 years, Occ: Business, O/o.2-4-696, Anjuman Khadimul Muslimeen Compound, Kachiguda, Hyderabad

¶6

… Petitioner

¶7

And

¶8

The State of Telangana, rep., by its Principal Secretary, Municipal Administration & Urban Development Department, Secretariat, Hyderabad and others

¶9

… Respondents

¶10

HON’BLE THE ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE DILIP B. BHOSALE AND

¶11

HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE P. NAVEEN RAO

¶12

WRIT PETITION No. 8824 OF 2016

¶13

PC: (per the Hon’ble the Acting Chief Justice Dilip B. Bhosale)

¶14

Heard learned counsel for the parties.

¶15

The writ petition basically challenges the demand notice dated 10-02-2015, issued by respondent No.3 – Deputy Commissioner, Greater Hyderabad Municipal Corporation.

¶16

Sri N. Ashok Kumar, learned counsel appearing for respondent Nos.2 and 3 at the outset invites our attention to Section 220 of the Greater Hyderabad Municipal Corporation Act, 1955 (for short, ‘the Act’) and submits that the petitioner can file a complaint against the notice and if complaint is made, respondent No.3 shall decide the same on merits in accordance with law.

¶17

Having confronted with this, Smt. Jyothi Kiran, learned counsel for the petitioner prays for withdrawal of the writ petition with liberty to the petitioner to file complaint within a period of ten days from today and seeks direction to respondent No.3 to decide the complaint within time frame.

¶18

In the circumstances, we are satisfied that the following order shall meet the ends of justice:

¶19

Writ petition is disposed of as not pressed. It is open to the petitioner to file a complaint as contemplated by Section 220 of the Act and if any such complaint is made within a period of ten days from today, respondent No.3 shall consider and decide the same on merits, in accordance with law and without entering into the issue of limitation,

¶20

as expeditiously as possible and preferably within a period of four weeks from the date of the complaint. All contentions on merits are kept open. Miscellaneous petitions, if any, also stand disposed of.

¶21

_________________________ DILIP B. BHOSALE, ACJ ________________________ P. NAVEEN RAO, J 17-03-2016s ks

Anjuman-e-Khadimul Muslimeen, v. The State of Telangana, Rep. by its Principal Secretary

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Anjuman-e-Khadimul Muslimeen, v. The State of Telangana, 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

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

M/s. St.Martins High School, Vs The State Of Telangana

Tummala Koteswara Rao Vs State of Andhra Pradesh

P. Surendra Reddy, Vs The Government of Andhra Pradesh

K. Bhupani, Vs The Government of Andhra Pradesh

Smt. N.Sundeetha, Vs Regional Transport Officer

T. Trimurthulu Vs The Secretary