Disposed

Mohd.Mohsin v. Dist Collector,Hyd,and 4

Telangana HC27 Nov 2018WP/13020/2015

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In a writ petition challenging the finalization of a contract for a Car Stand at District Hospital King Koti, the High Court directed maintenance of status quo for the petitioner until May 5, 2015, subject to compliance with the contract conditions.

What did the court decide?

Status quo directed to be maintained regarding the Car Stand subject to petitioner complying with contract conditions till May 5, 2015.

Mohd.Mohsin Vs Dist Collector,Hyd,and 4 — Contract and Commercial Disputes | Telangana HC (2018)

¶1

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT HYDERABAD FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AND THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH

¶2

FRIDAY, THE FIRST DAY OF MAY TWO THOUSAND AND FIFTEEN

¶3

:PRESENT:

¶4

THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE S.V.BHATT WP .NO:13020 of 2015

¶5

Between:

¶6

Mohd. Mohsin S/o. Mohd. Hasham,

¶7

..... Petitioner

¶8

AND

¶9

1 The District Collector, Hyderabad.

¶10

2 The District Revenue Officer, Hyderabad.

¶11

3 The Medical Superintendent, District Hospital, King Koti, Hyderabad.

¶12

4 The State of Telangana, Rep. by its Principal Secretary, Health Medical and Family

¶13

Welfare Department, Secretariat, Hyderabad. 5 A. Nirupa Rani, R/o. H.No. , Laldarwaza, Hyderabad.

¶14

.....Respondents

¶15

Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed herein, the High Court may be pleased to issue any appropriate Writ, order or direction more particularly one in the nature of Mandamus declaring the actions of Respondents in finalizing the contract in favour of 5th Respondent for running Cycle/Scooter/Car Stand in the premises of District Hospital King Koti, Hyderabad, as illegal, arbitrary, in gross violation of tender notice dated 3103-2015 and Principles of Natural Justice and set aside the same.

¶16

The petition coming on for hearing, upon perusing the petition and the affidavit filed herein and upon hearing the arguments of Sri Mirza Safiulla Baig, Advocate for the Petitioner and of the GP for Revenue, (TG) for the Respondents No. 1 & 2, and the GP for Medical & Health, (TG), for the Respondents No. 3 and 4, the Court made the following.

¶17

ORDER:

¶18

“Status quo as on today as regards the subject Cycle/Scooter/Car stand in the premises of 3^rd respondent is directed to be maintained till 05-06-2015 subject to petitioner complying with the conditions of contract.

¶19

Post on 04-06-2015.”

¶20

ASSISTANT REGISTRAR

¶21

//TRUE COPY//

¶22

For ASSISTANT REGISTRAR

¶23

To 1 The District Collector, Hyderabad. 2 The District Revenue Officer, Hyderabad. 3 The Medical Superintendent, District Hospital, King Koti, Hyderabad. 4 The Principal Secretary, Health Medical and Family Welfare Department, State of Telangana, Secretariat, Hyderabad. 5 A. Nirupa Rani, R/o. H.No. , Laldarwaza, Hyderabad. (Addressees 1 to 5 BY RPAD)

¶24

6. Two CCs to GP for Revenue, (TG), High Court Buildings, Hyderabad (OUT)

¶25

7. Two CCs to GP for Medical & Health, (TG), High Court Buildings, Hyderabad (OUT)

¶26

8. One CC to Sri Mirza Safiullah Baig, Advocate (OPUC) 9. One Spare Copy

¶27

HIGH COURT

¶28

¶29

DRAFTED ON 2-5-2015

¶30

SVBJ

¶31

DATE: 1-5-2015

¶32

NOTE: POST ON 4-6-2015

¶33

ORDER

¶34

WP. NO. 13020 OF 2015

¶35

STATUS QUO

Mohd.Mohsin v. Dist Collector,Hyd,and 4

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Mohd.Mohsin v. Dist Collector,Hyd,and 4

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

Nallabotula Laleappa, Ananthapuram Dist Vs Prl Secy, School Education Dept., Hyd and 9 Ot

Vajja Srinivasa Rao, Hyd. Vs Prl. Secy., Fin. Dept. and 2 Ors.

Sri K. Ramachandraiah, Ysr Cuddapah Dist. Vs Prl. Secy., Education Dept. and 4 Ors.

Kolluri Rama Krishna Vs The Superintendent of Police

V.Madan Mohan, S/o late v.Munuswamy Naidu, Vs The Superintendent of Police

K. Rama Rao, S/o. Sri Sitaramaiah, Vs Union of India, represented by its