A writ petition filed by the petitioner seeking an extension of a business licence and compensation for loss due to inaction was dismissed. The court observed that the original licence period had expired, leaving no cause for further adjudication.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE P.KESHAVA RAO
W.P.No.13946 OF 2016
ORDER:
Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner as well as the respondents.
‘……..writ of mandamus directing the respondents to consider the representation dated 31.03.2016, which is seeking to permit the petitioner to continue the business for one year more on condition that the petitioner will be paid monthly installments for such period of extension pertains to the petitioner’s Car Parking Area/Taxi stand as the respondents ignored the interim order of the Hon’ble High Court in W.P.M.P.No.51247 of 2014 in W.P.No.39704 of 2015 in order to compensate petitioner’s loss caused by the respondents, by declaring the respondents’ inaction is being illegal, arbitrary, unwarranted and violative of Articles 14 & 21 of the Constitution of India and pass such other order or orders as this Hon’ble Court may deem fit and proper in the interest of justice.’
P.KESHAVA RAO,J
18th April 2018 Tsr
1 issue framed by the court
Whether the writ petition survives for adjudication given the expiry of the original licence period.
Petitioner
Corporation
P.Kesava Rao
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
