Partly allowed

Priya Agri Poultry Farm, v. The State of Andhra Pradesh

Telangana HC26 Jul 2018WP/13394/2018

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In a writ petition challenging a straightaway eviction notice under Section 133 Cr.P.C., the court set aside the notice for non-compliance with statutory requirements. The third respondent is directed to issue a fresh notice fixing time and place for a hearing within two weeks.

What did the court decide?

Impugned notice set aside; direction to issue fresh notice fixing time and place within two weeks for appearance before the third respondent.

Priya Agri Poultry Farm, Vs The State of Andhra Pradesh — Property and Title | Telangana HC (2018)

¶1

HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE A.RAJASHEKER REDDY WRIT PETITION No.13394 OF 2018

¶2

O R D E R :

¶3

This writ petition is filed challenging the action of the 3^rd respondent in issuing impugned notice dated 09.04.2018, under Section 133 Cr.P.C., directing the petitioner firm to vacate the subject premises within 15 days.

¶4

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the 3^rd respondent straightaway passed the impugned notice for eviction against the petitioner under Section 133 Cr.P.C.; and that Section 133 Cr.P.C provides for conditional order, as such the impugned notice is not in tune with the said section.

¶5

Heard Learned Assistant Government Pleader for Revenue, learned Government Pleader for Medical and Health, learned counsel for the 13^th respondent and Sri G.Seshadri, learned counsel for respondents 7 and 10.

¶6

A perusal of the impugned proceedings goes to show

¶7

that prior to issuance of the same no notice or any conditional order is passed. In view of the same, the impugned notice appears to be not in consonance with Section 133(1) Cr.P.C. Though, counters are filed by respondents 3, 6 and 12, since the issue that arise for consideration is whether the impugned notice is in consonance with Section 133 Cr.P.C., without going into the

¶8

¶9

factual aspects, the writ petition is allowed to the extent indicated below.

¶10

The impugned order is set aside to the extent of direction given by the 3^rd respondent to the petitioner to vacate the poultry firm. The 3^rd respondent is directed to issue notice to the petitioner as envisaged under Section 133 (1) Cr.P.C. by fixing time and place within 2 weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order and there upon it is open for the petitioner to appear before the 3^rd respondent. After considering the objections and compliance of the petitioner, the 3^rd respondent shall pass appropriate orders under Section 133 Cr.P.C. If petitioner fails to appear before the 3^rd respondent, it is open for the 3^rd respondent to pass appropriate orders. However, it goes without saying that petitioner has to maintain proper sanitation to see that the residents of the locality as well as the 13^th respondent college are not affected. No order as to costs.

¶11

As a sequel thereto, miscellaneous petitions, if any, pending in the writ petition, shall stand closed.

¶12

_____________________________ A.RAJASHEKER REDDY, J

¶13

26.07.2018 t k.

Priya Agri Poultry Farm, v. The State of Andhra Pradesh

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Priya Agri Poultry Farm, 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

Kuncham Mohan Rao Vs State of Telangana

Pp Company Vs M/S Bharat Pertoleum Corporation Ltd.,(Bpcl),Rep. by CHAIRAND2

P. Mallikarjuna Reddy Vs State of A.P.

Sri P.Srinivas Vs The State of Telangana

Gutha Sankara Rao Vs The State of Andhra Pradesh

Parupalli Yuva Vs Dr. N.T.R. University of Health Sciences