Dismissed

The District Collector, v. P.Narsing Rao

Telangana HC18 Jan 2018WA/27/2018

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This Writ Appeal was filed against a Single Judge order directing a private appellant to pay costs to the writ petitioner due to delay in obtaining instructions. The High Court, finding the justification for costs unreasonable, set aside the costs order but left the petitioner free to challenge the underlying rejection of the money lending licence elsewhere. The appeal was dismissed.

What did the court decide?

The order directing the appellant to pay costs of Rs.10,000/- was set aside.

The District Collector, Vs P.Narsing… — Constitutional and Fundamental Rights | Telangana HC (2018)

¶1

THE HON’BLE THE ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE RAMESH RANGANATHAN

¶2

AND

¶3

THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE M.GANGA RAO

¶4

Writ Appeal No.27 of 2018

¶5

JUDGMENT: {Per the Hon’ble the Acting Chief Justice Ramesh Ranganathan}

¶6

This appeal, under Clause 15 of the Letters Patent, is preferred against the order passed by the Learned Single Judge in W.P.No.28649 of 2017 dated 03.11.2017.

¶7

The appellants herein are respondents 2 and 3 in the writ petition. The 1^st respondent herein filed the writ petition seeking a mandamus to declare the action of respondents 3 and 4 therein in not taking any steps pursuant to the letter addressed by the District Collector directing them to submit a report on his application dated 11.04.2016, as also the action of respondents 2 to 7 therein in not disposing of his application for grant of money lending licence, though he had complied with all formalities, as illegal and arbitrary. A consequential direction was sought to the respondents in the writ petition to consider and pass appropriate orders on the 1^st respondentwrit petitioner’s application.

¶8

On the ground that the learned Government Pleader for Revenue had not obtained instructions, though the matter had been adjourned twice, the Learned Single Judge allowed the writ petition with costs of Rs.10,000/- to be paid by the 1^st appellant herein (2^nd respondent in the writ petition) to the 1^st respondent-writ petitioner; and directed the 1^st appellant herein to pass an order within one week from the date of receipt of a copy of the order positively, and without fail, on the 1^st respondent-writ petitioner’s application dated 29.03.2016.

¶9

It is wholly unnecessary for us to dwell on the merits of the 1^st respondent-writ petitioner’s claim as we are satisfied that time being sought twice to obtain instructions did not justify imposition of costs of

¶10

Rs.10,000/-. The relief sought for in the writ petition was only to direct the respondents therein, including the appellants herein, to consider the 1^st respondent-writ petitioner’s application for grant of a money lending licence. The Joint Collector, by memo dated 28.12.2017, informed the 1^st respondent-writ petitioner that his request for issue of a money lending licence was rejected. While the 1^st appellant has complied with the order of the Learned Single Judge, and has considered the 1^st respondent-writ petitioner’s application, the imposition of costs, in the facts and circumstances of the present case, is not justified.

¶11

The order under appeal, to the extent it directed the 1^st appellant herein to pay costs of Rs.10,000/- to the 1^st respondent-writ petitioner, is set aside. Needless to state that this order shall not disable the 1^st respondent-writ petitioner from questioning the validity of the memo dated 28.12.2017 in appropriate legal proceedings.

¶12

The Writ Appeal is disposed of accordingly. Miscellaneous petitions pending, if any, shall also stand disposed of. There shall be no order as to costs.

¶13

_________________________________ (RAMESH RANGANATHAN, ACJ)

¶14

___________________ (M.GANGA RAO, J)

¶15

18^th January, 2018 JSU

¶16

THE HON’BLE THE ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE RAMESH RANGANATHAN AND

¶17

THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE M.GANGA RAO

¶18

Writ Appeal No.27 of 2018

¶19

Date: 18.01.2018

¶20

JSU

The District Collector, v. P.Narsing Rao

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

The District Collector, v. P.Narsing Rao

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

Vatambeti Chengal Rao Vs The Union of India

Nagarjuna Construction Company Limited,a Company Vs Infrastructure Corporation of Andhra Pradesh Limited

Mr. P. Mahalaxmi Vs The State of Telangana

The Andhra Pradesh Wakf Board Vs Shaik Akber Ali

M Swarnalatha Vs The State of Telangana

The Greater Visakhapatnam Municipal Corporation Vs M/s. The Indian Hume Pipe Co. Limited