Disposed

M/s. Indus Towers Limited, v. The Punganur Municipality

Telangana HC22 Mar 2016WP/9031/2016

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Court directed the Commissioner to decide a pending notice within four weeks. The petitioner agreed to deposit the amount before challenging an adverse order. Pending miscellaneous applications were closed.

What did the court decide?

Directed the Commissioner to decide the notice within four weeks and the petitioner to deposit the amount before challenging an adverse order.

M/s. Indus Towers Limited, Vs The… — Constitutional and Fundamental Rights | Telangana HC (2016)

¶1

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

¶2

THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE P. NAVEEN RAO

¶3

Writ Petition No.9031 of 2016

¶4

Date:22.3.2016

¶5

Between: M/s. Indus Towers Ltd., Hyderabad. …..Petitioner And The Punganur Municipality, Represented by its Commissioner, Punganur, Chittoor District.

¶6

… Respondent

¶7

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

¶8

Writ Petition No.9031 of 2016

¶9

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

¶10

Heard learned counsel for the parties.

¶11

We have perused the order dated 1.4.2015 passed in Writ Petition No. 9059 of 2015, whereby, the Commissioner was directed to give notice to the petitioner inviting them to participate in the hearing. It was further observed that the petitioner would be free to raise all contentions, as raised in the said petition. The Commissioner was directed to consider the contentions urged by the petitioner and decide the notice himself, by passing a speaking order.

¶12

Mr. Ghanta Rama Rao, learned Senior Counsel submits that till this date, the Commissioner has not decided the notice despite the directions issued by this Court.

¶13

Mr. Mohd. Saleem, learned Standing Counsel for the respondentMunicipality, on the other hand, submits that the petitioner does not cooperate and, therefore, the Commissioner could not decide the notice till this date. We would not like to enter into a controversy as to who is responsible for the delay in disposal of the notice.

¶14

Mr. Ghanta Rama Rao, learned Senior Counsel submits that if the notice is decided against the petitioner, the petitioner shall deposit the entire amount that will be ordered/directed to be paid within a period of two weeks from the date of such decision, subject to the petitioner’s right to challenge the said order in appropriate proceedings. In other words, he submits that if the notice is decided against the petitioner, they shall

¶15

deposit the amount as per the order and then challenge the same in appropriate proceedings. His statement is recorded and accepted.

¶16

In view thereof, this writ petition is disposed of by the following order:

¶17

“The Commissioner shall decide the notice as per the order dated 1.4.2015 in Writ Petition No. 9059 of 2015, as expeditiously as possible and preferably within a period of four weeks from today. Learned Standing Counsel for the respondent-Municipality shall communicate this order to the Commissioner within a period of one week from today. If the order passed on the notice is adverse to the petitioner, the petitioner shall deposit the entire amount within a period of fifteen days from the date of communication of the said order subject to their right to file appropriate proceedings against the order of the Commissioner. All contentions on merits are kept open.”

¶18

Consequently, pending miscellaneous applications shall also stand closed.

¶19

____________________ DILIP B. BHOSALE, ACJ

¶20

__________________ P. NAVEEN RAO, J 22^nd March, 2016 Pnb

M/s. Indus Towers Limited, v. The Punganur Municipality

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

M/s. Indus Towers Limited, v. The Punganur Municipality

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

Prathikollalanka Gramapanchayat, Vs The Government of Andhra Pradesh

K.Giridhar, Vs The Regional Transport Officer

St. Marys College of Engineering and Technology, Vs The Deputy Transport Commissioner and Secretary

M/s. Pratibha Vidyaniketan High School, HIG-5 Vs The State Of Telangana

Chikurumelli Vikranth, Vs The State of Andhra Pradesh Rep by its Principal Secretary

Katta Kaniki Reddy Vs The State of Telangana represented by its Principal Secretar