Dismissed

Gurajala Venkateswara Rao, S/o. Koteswara Rao, v. Union of India, Rep. by its

Telangana HC20 Feb 2017WP/45096/2016

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Court dismissed a Writ Petition complaining of non-compliance with an undertaking from an earlier decision. The Court held that the legal position settled in the connected writ petition rendered the claim of non-compliance inoperative.

What did the court decide?

The Writ Petition is dismissed. Pending miscellaneous petitions are also dismissed. No order as to costs.

Gurajala Venkateswara Rao, S/o. Koteswara Rao, Vs… — Writ and Judicial Review | Telangana HC (2017)

¶1

THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE V. RAMASUBRAMANIAN

¶2

AND

¶3

THE HON’BLE MS. JUSTICE J. UMA DEVI

¶4

WRIT PETITION No. 45096 of 2016

¶5

ORDER: (Per VRS,J)

¶6

The petitioner has come up with the present writ petition, virtually complaining of non-compliance with an undertaking given by the official respondents in a previous writ petition, W.P.No.11301

¶7

of 2016.

¶8

The counsel for the petitioner is not present in Court.

¶9

We have perused the copy of the order passed by us on

¶10

19.07.2016 in W.P.No.11301 of 2016. Paragraphs-7 and 8 of the said

¶11

order read as follows:

¶12

“7. Even an enemy, could provide the trigger point for an investigation. If a mandamus is sought from a Court, the Court would certainly reject a prayer of this nature made by a person, who camouflages a private cause under the garb of a public cause. But once the official respondents have taken cognizance and initiated some action, the same cannot be prevented even if we condemn the action of the writ petitioners. Therefore, we do not wish to get into the details of the litigation as between the petitioner and the contesting respondents.

¶13

8. In view of the statement made on oath by the Principal Director of Income Tax (Investigation), no orders are necessary in these writ petitions. We make it clear that there is no obligation on the part of the official respondents, merely to act on the basis of a person who wants to settle scores with somebody. The writ petitions are accordingly closed. The miscellaneous petitions, if any, pending in these writ petitions shall stand closed. No costs.”

¶14

VRS,J & JUD,,J WP No.45096 of 2016

¶15

¶16

Therefore, in the light of the nature of the disposal that we have given to the previous writ petition, the question of non-compliance with any undertaking given by the official respondents on the earlier occasion does not arise. Hence, the Writ Petition is dismissed.

¶17

Consequently, miscellaneous petitions if any pending in the writ petition shall stand dismissed. No order as to costs.

¶18

V. RAMASUBRAMANIAN, J

¶19

______________
J. UMA DEVI, J.
20 th February, 2017
cbs

¶20

VRS,J & JUD,,J WP No.45096 of 2016

¶21

¶22

THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE V. RAMASUBRAMANIAN  AND

¶23

THE HON’BLE MS. JUSTICE J. UMA DEVI

¶24

Writ Petition No. 45096 of 2016 (dismissed)

¶25

20^th February, 2017

¶26

cbs

Gurajala Venkateswara Rao, S/o. Koteswara Rao, v. Union of India, Rep. by its

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Gurajala Venkateswara Rao, S/o. Koteswara Rao, v. Union of India, Rep. by its

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

M/s. Datta Sai Oil Mill, 16/130, Vs The Commercial Tax Officer - I, Kadapa

Commissioner of Income Tax-Ii Vs Energy Solutions International India Pvt. Ltd.

M/s. Aveco Technologies (Pvt.) Ltd., Rep. by its M.D., Vs Union of India, rep. by its Secretary, Department of

Rayachoti Omeshnadh Vs Kaloji Narayana Rao University of Health Sciences

Commissioner of Income tax-Ii, Vs Sri Aurobindo Impex and Company

Council of the Institute of Chartered Accountants of India Vs Shri Shailendra Kumar Sharma