Allowed

R. Ramesh Kumar v. The State of Telangana

Telangana HC24 Apr 2017WP/14783/2017

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court allowed a writ petition challenging a one-line eviction order issued against a PCO operator. The order was set aside for lacking reasons, and the matter was remanded to the respondent for passing appropriate orders giving due reasons in accordance with prior High Court directives.

What did the court decide?

The impugned order was allowed/allowed to be set aside solely on the ground of lack of reasons, and the matter was remanded to the second respondent to pass appropriate orders giving due reasons for e

R. Ramesh Kumar Vs The State of Telangana — Landlord and Tenant | Telangana HC (2017)

¶1

HON’BLE SRI JUSTI CE A. RAMALI NGESWARA RAO

¶2

Writ Petition No.14783 of 2017

¶3

Order:

¶4

Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Government Pleader for the respondents.

¶5

The petitioner states that he is a poor and physically handicapped person with 80% disability. He is running a Public Call Office (PCO) at CSD Gate, Osmania General Hospital, Hyderabad, since he was permitted by the second respondent, the Superintendent, Osmania General Hospital, Hyderabad in 1988. It is also the case of the petitioner that an amount of Rs.400/- was fixed as rent for running the said PCO and the rent was subsequently enhanced in the year 2003. Now, it is stated across the Bar that the rent is Rs.640/-. Now, when a notice of eviction was issued on 24.03.2017 by the second respondent, in pursuance of the orders of this Court in W.P.No.21401 of 2012 dated 29.08.2016, the present Writ Petition is filed.

¶6

It appears that W.P.No.21401 of 2012 was filed by similarly situated person, when he was asked to remit the enhanced yearly rent from 2003 to March 2012. While dismissing the said Writ Petition, this Court directed the second respondent to examine the legality and authority of allotment, terms of lease etc., in favour of the petitioner therein and after initiating action against the petitioner therein, the second respondent was directed to initiate similar action against the allottees, who have been allotted space without definite terms and conditions in the premises of Osmania General Hospital. The second respondent was given liberty to re-allot the spaces after conducting auction.

¶7

Now, the present impugned order is stated to have been passed

¶8

pursuant to the said order of this Court, which reads as follows:

¶9

“Sri R. Ramesh Kumar, P.C.O., at CSD Gate, OGH, Hyderabad is hereby instructed to immediately evict the PCO at CSD Gate, OGH, as per the Hon’ble High Court order vide reference 1^st cited above, failing which necessary action will be initiated.”

¶10

Since it is a one line order and does not contain any reasons, this Court is satisfied that this Writ Petition has to be allowed solely on the ground of the impugned order not containing reasons.

¶11

The Writ Petition is, accordingly, allowed and the matter is remanded to the second respondent for passing appropriate orders giving due reasons for eviction of the petitioner in terms of the orders passed by this Court in W.P.No.21401 of 2012 dated 29.08.2016. There shall be no order as to costs.

¶12

As a sequel thereto, the miscellaneous petitions pending in this

¶13

Writ Petition, if any, shall stand closed.

¶14

____________________________ A. RAMALI NGESWARA RAO, J

¶15

Date: 24.04.2017 Nsr

R. Ramesh Kumar v. The State of Telangana

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

R. Ramesh Kumar 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

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Metuku Sandeep Kumar Vs The State of Telangana

Jonnala Bhoopal Vs Union of India

S2 Cinimas Screen I,Ii, a/c, Vs The State of A.P .

Shanti Theatre, Vs State of Telangana

Annapurna Theatre, a/c, Vijayawada, Vs The State of Andhra Pradesh rep.by its Principal Secretary

Morampudi Venkateswara Rao, Vs State of Telangana