Disposed

Malisetty Subramanyam, v. The State of Andhra Pradesh

Telangana HC11 Jul 2017WP/22740/2017

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The petitioner filed a writ petition seeking a mandamus to issue a physically handicapped certificate, alleging inaction by the respondent authorities despite a Lokayukta direction. The court disposed of the petition at the admission stage, directing the respondent to decide the application within four weeks.

What did the court decide?

Directions to deal with the application for physically handicapped certificate within four weeks.

Malisetty Subramanyam, Vs The State of Andhra Pradesh — Medical Negligence | Telangana HC (2017)

¶1

THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE C. PRAVEEN KUMAR

¶2

WRIT PETITION NO. 22740 of 2017

¶3

ORDER :

¶4

Heard both sides. With the consent of both parties the writ petition is disposed of at the admission stage.

¶5

The present writ petition came to be filed seeking issuance of writ of mandamus declaring the action of respondent authorities in not considering the application/ representation dated 15.06.2017 made by the petitioner and not issuing physically handicapped certificate/ medical certificate, as illegal and arbitrary.

¶6

The petitioner claims to have met with an accident in the year 2014 and since then he became deaf. Thereafter, he made several applications to respondent Nos.3 and 5 for issuance of physically handicapped certificate, but in vain. Aggrieved thereby, the petitioner is said to have made a complaint before the Hon’ble Lokayukta vide complaint No.1067/ 2017/ B2, against respondent No.3, wherein the Hon’ble Upa-Lokayukta by an order dated 29.04.2017, directed respondent No.3 to get the matter enquired and render medical test to the informant, subject to his eligibility within a period of two months from the date of the receipt of a copy of that order. It is stated that after receiving the said order, the petitioner made a representation dated 15.06.2017 to respondent No.3 for compliance of the said order. According to the petitioner, he gave a representation to the authorities for taking steps to issue the handicap certificate along with orthopedic certificate, but the

¶7

¶8

respondent authorities did not pass any orders on the said representation till date. Hence the present writ petition came to be filed.

¶9

Learned counsel representing respondent No.3 would submit that if the said representation is still pending consideration, suitable orders would be passed.

¶10

Having regard to the above, the writ petition is disposed of directing respondent No.3 to deal with the application dated 15.06.2017, made by the petitioner for issuance of physically handicap certificate, in accordance with law, as early as possible, preferably within a period of four weeks from the date of receipt of the order. No costs.

¶11

Consequently, miscellaneous petitions, if any pending, shall

¶12

stand closed.

¶13

_________________________ JUSTICE C. PRAVEEN KUMAR

¶14

11.07.2017 vhb

Malisetty Subramanyam, v. The State of Andhra Pradesh

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Malisetty Subramanyam, v. The State of Andhra Pradesh

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

Podugu Prasad s/o Venkaiah, Vs State of Telangana rep, by its Secretary, Home Department

G.Subbaramaiah, Vs The State of Andhra Pradesh

Syed Ghouse Basha Vs The State of Andhra Pradesh

M. Prabhakar Reddy Vs Station House Officer

Kobbarisetty Ramana Kumar, Vs The Commissioner of Police

Smt. N. Anupama, Vs The State of Andhra Pradesh