Allowed

Hemanth Inamdar v. The State of Telangana

Telangana HC23 Nov 2018WP/31785/2018

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Court allowed a writ petition challenging a Government Order for non-application of mind and lack of reasons. The order was set aside and remitted to authorities for reconsideration in accordance with law, while a prior order suspending operations was upheld.

What did the court decide?

The impugned Government Order dated 21.07.2018 is set aside. The matter is remitted to Respondents 1 to 4 for consideration and disposal in accordance with law.

Hemanth Inamdar Vs The State of Telangana — Writ and Judicial Review | Telangana HC (2018)

¶1

HON’BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE SRI THOTTATHIL B. RADHAKRISHNAN AND HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE S.V.BHATT

¶2

WRIT PETITION No.31785 OF 2018

¶3

ORDER: (ORAL) (Per the Hon’ble Sri Justice S.V.Bhatt)

¶4

Hear Mr.T.Kistaiah for petitioners, Mr.P.Durga Reday and Mr.A.Srinath for respondents.

¶5

The petitioners challenge G.O.Rt. No.484, Agriculture & Cooperation (COOP.I) Department, dated 21.07.2018 as illegal and reflects non-application of mind, arbitrary and unconstitutional.

¶6

On 07.09.2018, this Court directed the 5^th respondent bank not to pass resolution either in the general body meeting scheduled to be held on 09.09.2018, or in any other general body meeting to be held thereafter, without the presence of the minimum number of members constituting the quorum as stipulated in the bye-laws of the society and in terms of Rule 23 of the Rules. The effect of order dated 07.09.2018 is G.O.Rt. No.484 dated 21.07.2018, for all purposes, is suspended.

¶7

We have perused the impugned Government Order and are prima facie of the view that no ground is made out for vacating the order dated 07.09.2018. The pendency of writ petition does not resolve the request made by 5^th respondent bank before respondents 1 to 4. Therefore, the counsel consent to disposing of the writ petition by setting aside the order impugned for the very same reasons which are stated in the order dated 07.09.2018 and

¶8

¶9

remit the matter to respondents 1 to 4 for consideration in accordance with law. Firstly, we are of the view that the impugned Government Order does not satisfy the requirements of law and does not spell reasons why exemption is granted and at any rate on this short ground, the impugned order is liable to be set aside.

¶10

Therefore, in the facts and circumstances of the case and for the reasons stated above, the order impugned in the writ petition is set aside and the matter is remitted to respondents 1 to 4 for consideration and disposal strictly in accordance with law.

¶11

The writ petition is, accordingly, allowed. No order as to costs.

¶12

As a sequel thereto, miscellaneous petitions, if any pending, stand closed.

¶13

__________________________________ THOTTATHIL B. RADHAKRISHNAN, CJ

¶14

____________ S.V.BHATT, J

¶15

23^rd November, 2018 Mrr/ Lrkm

Hemanth Inamdar v. The State of Telangana

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Hemanth Inamdar v. The State of Telangana

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

Greenko Energies Private Limited, Vs The Andhra Pradesh Electricity Regulatory Commission

N.Purushottam Reddy Vs the State of Telangana.,Rep.,Pp and 2 Others

The Salaried Employees Vs the Dy. Regist., Coop., Societies, E.G.Dist., and 46 Others

Vairgade Vinod, Vs The State of Telangana, Rep by its Principal Secretary

Batthula Padma Vs Mr. Ranjeev R. Acharya and 4 others

Arnachalam Siva Kumar Vs The State of Andhra Pradesh