Dismissed

Khaja Aijazuddin, v. The State of Telangana, rep. by Principal Secretary to

Telangana HC17 Jan 2017PIL/147/2015

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

A PIL challenging the inaction of Government authorities in recovering outstanding dues from a society. The Court disposed of the matter based on an existing government memo directing installment payments, despite arguments regarding a request for concession.

What did the court decide?

Petitioner directed to continue paying the assured amount in instalments as per the Government Memo dated 29.11.2016.

Khaja Aijazuddin, Vs The State of… — Contract and Commercial Disputes | Telangana HC (2017)

¶1

THE HON’BLE THE ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE RAMESH RANGANATHAN

¶2

AND

¶3

THE HON’BLE Dr. JUSTICE SHAMEEM AKTHER

¶4

Public Interest Litigation No.147 of 2015

¶5

Order: (Per the Hon’ble The Acting Chief Justice Ramesh Ranganathan)

¶6

The relief sought for in this writ petition is to declare the inaction of respondent Nos. 1 to 3, in recovering Rs.68,20,500/- with interest from the 4^th respondent-society, as arbitrary and illegal.

¶7

Sri C.Kumar, learned counsel for the petitioner, would submit that the amounts due from the 4^th respondent includes amounts payable by them for several services rendered by the Government. He would also draw attention of this Court to the counter affidavit, filed on behalf of respondent Nos. 1 to 3, that no exemption has been granted to the 4^th respondent-society from payment of the outstanding amount.

¶8

It is wholly unnecessary for us to dwell on this aspect any further, as the Learned Government Pleader for Home has placed before us a copy of the memo dated 29.11.2016 issued by the Government of Telangana recording the directions issued by this Court on 22.11.2016; and, thereafter, directing the 4^th respondent to clear the outstanding charges of Rs.80,14,000/-, for the period from 2011 to 2016, by remitting it to the Government head of account over a period of six months in six instalments, with the first instalment to be paid on 30.12.2016.

¶9

Sri D. Prakash Reddy, learned Senior Counsel appearing on behalf of the 4^th respondent-society, would submit that, in terms of the aforesaid memo, the 4^th respondent has already paid the first of the six monthly instalments; while the 4^th respondent has requested the Government to grant them concession with regards such payment, the 4^th respondent, shall, till the Government passes an order granting them concession, continue to pay the aforesaid amount of Rs.80,14,000/- in terms of the instalments stipulated in the Government Memo dated 29.11.2016.

¶10

¶11

In view of the aforesaid submission of Sri D. Prakash Reddy, learned Senior Counsel, we consider it appropriate to dispose of the writ petition directing that the amounts due from the 4^th respondent of Rs.80,14,000/-, shall be paid by them to the Government in accordance with the Government Memo dated 29.11.2016. This order shall, however, not preclude the 4^th respondent from requesting the Government to consider granting them concession in repayment of the amount, and for the Government to consider any such request in accordance with law. Needless to state that till the Government takes a decision, and passes an order granting them concession, the 4^th respondent shall continue to make payment in terms of the Government Memo dated 29.11.2016 within the time stipulated therein.

¶12

The writ petition is, accordingly, dismissed. Miscellaneous Petitions pending, if any, shall also stand dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs.

¶13

____
(RAMESH RANGANATHAN, ACJ)

(Dr. SHAMEEM AKTHER, J)

17^th January, 2017

pnb

THE HON’BLE THE ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE RAMESH RANGANATHAN AND

¶18

THE HON’BLE Dr. JUSTICE SHAMEEM AKTHER

¶19

Public Interest Litigation No.147 of 2015

¶20

Date: 17.1.2017

¶21

pnb

¶22

Khaja Aijazuddin, v. The State of Telangana, rep. by Principal Secretary to

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Khaja Aijazuddin, v. The State of Telangana, rep. by Principal Secretary to

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

Narahari Jagadish Kumar Vs The State of Andhra Pradesh

P. Venkateswara Rao, Vs The Government of Andhra Pradesh

Forum for Good Governance, Vs The State of Telangana

Kona Raghupathi, Vs The State of Andhra Pradesh

Jammi Nagamani Vs The State of Telangana, Rep. by Principal Secretary

O.C.Sankshema Sangham Vs the State of Ap., B.C.Welfare (C2) Dept., and 4 Others

Prajwala, Vs Union of India, Rep. by its Secretary, Ministry of Home

Pakala Srihari Rao, Secunderabad Vs Chief Secretary, State of Telangana, Hyd and Another

G. Krishnaiah Vs The State of Andhra Pradesh

Srinivasa Hatcheries Limited Vs The Government of Andhra Pradesh

Mididoddi Purushotham, Vs The Singareni Collieries Company Ltd.

P Anjaneyulu Vs The Union of India

T. Jyothi W/o Sri T. Anandam, Vs The State of Andhra Pradesh rep. by its

M/s. Indur Projects Limited, Vs Union of India