Dismissed

Dr.Ratnam v.Mullapudi, v. State of Telangana, Rep. by its Principal Secretary

Telangana HC4 Aug 2017WP/26066/2017

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Petitioners challenged the Joint Collector insisting on proceeding with an appeal despite maintainability objections regarding delay. The Court held the authority is competent and declined to interfere pending its decision on delay, dismissing the writ petition.

What did the court decide?

Writ petition dismissed leaving it open to petitioners to work out remedies including condonation of delay.

Dr.Ratnam v.Mullapudi, Vs State of Telangana, Rep. by… — Landlord and Tenant | Telangana HC (2017)

¶1

HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE P.NAVEEN RAO

¶2

WRIT PETITION NO.26066 OF 2017

¶3

Date: 04.08.2017

¶4

Between:

¶5

Dr Ratnam V.Mullapudi S/o late M.Ramanna, Aged about 75 years, r/o M/s. Usha Mullapudi Cardiac Centre, Gajularamaram Village, Qutubullapur Mandal, Ranga Reddy district.

¶6

…..Petitioners

¶7

And

¶8

State of Telangana, rep.by its Principal Secretary, Revenue Department, Secretariat, Hyderabad and others.

¶9

…..Respondents

¶10

The Court made the following:

¶11

PNR,J W.P.No.26066 of 2017

¶12

¶13

HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE P.NAVEEN RAO

¶14

WRIT PETITION NO.26066 OF 2017

¶15

ORDER:

¶16

Petitioners claim that Occupancy Right Certificate (ORC) was granted to the vendors of the petitioners to an extent of Ac.15.04 guntas of land in Sy.No.222 of Gajularamaram village, Quthubullapur Mandal, Medchal, Keesara District on 16.09.1994. Petitioners purchased the said property from their vendors. Respondent no.4 filed appeal before the Joint Collector after long lapse of time. On receipt of notice from the Joint Collector, petitioners filed objections on maintainability of appeal on the ground of inordinate delay and opposed the condonation of delay. This writ petition is filed contending that even without deciding the objections filed by the petitioners on maintainability of appeal, after long lapse of time, the Joint Collector is insisting to proceed with the main case and compelling the petitioners to argue on merits of the appeal.

¶17

It is not in dispute that Joint Collector is competent to entertain the appeal filed by the aggrieved party against the ORC granted to the vendors of the petitioners. That is being so, it cannot be expected that the Joint Collector would not consider the objections of the petitioners on the issue of maintainability of appeal on the ground of delay in filing such appeal. The Joint Collector being statutory appellate authority, Court is not inclined to interfere with, at this stage, even before a decision is taken by him on the issue of maintainability of appeal on the ground of delay and issue directions to statutory authority even before a decision is taken in exercise of power of judicial review under

¶18

¶19

PNR,J W.P.No.26066 of 2017

¶20

Article 226 of the Constitution of India. At this stage, it is appropriate to note that power under Article 226 of the Constitution of India against quasi-judicial authority decision is very limited and Court cannot interject the proceedings pending before the quasi-judicial authority or mandate him to deal with the issue pending before him in a particular manner even before a decision is taken. Thus, Court is not inclined to grant the relief as sought for. Accordingly, writ petition is dismissed, leaving it open to the petitioners to work out their remedies as available in law including the issue of condonation of delay in filing appeal against them.

¶21

Miscellaneous petitions, if any, pending in this writ petition

¶22

shall stand closed. There shall be no order as to costs.

¶23

___________________________ JUSTICE P.NAVEEN RAO

¶24

Date: 04.08.2017 kkm

¶25

PNR,J W.P.No.26066 of 2017

¶26

¶27

HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE P.NAVEEN RAO

¶28

WRIT PETITION NO.26066 OF 2017

¶29

Date: 04.08.2017

¶30

kkm

Dr.Ratnam v.Mullapudi, v. State of Telangana, Rep. by its Principal Secretary

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Dr.Ratnam v.Mullapudi, v. 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

Stuvartpuram Girijana Colonization Society, Vs The State of Andhra Pradesh

B. Laxmiprasanna, W/o. G. Suresh, Vs The State of Andhra Pradesh, Rep. by its Principal

Chakkala Dharmaraju Vs Sri Anjaneya Swamivari Temple of Jammivaru

Mohd. Saleem Vs The State of Telangana

Nunna Satyanarayana Vs The State of Telangana rep. by its Principal Secretary

Yelika Madhavi, W/o. Yelika Hari Babu, Vs State of Andhra Pradesh Rep. by its Principal Secretary