Disposed

Kola Muthyalu v. The State of Telangana and 6 others

Telangana HC4 Feb 2020WP/1146/2020

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court declined to pass final orders on the dispute regarding the grant of a retail outlet without meeting land specifications. Instead, the court directed the petitioner to submit a fresh representation to the respondent within two weeks. The respondent was advised to consider this new submission and pass appropriate orders within eight weeks.

What did the court decide?

Directed petitioner to submit a fresh representation within two weeks. Respondent to consider it and pass orders in another eight weeks.

Kola Muthyalu Vs The State of Telangana and 6 others — Property and Title | Telangana HC (2020)

¶1

HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE ABHINAND KUMAR SHAVILI WRIT PETITION NO.1146 OF 2020

¶2

ORDER:

¶3

This writ petition is filed seeking the following relief:

¶4

“..to issue an appropriate writ, direction or order, more particularly one in the nature of the Writ of Mandamus, declaring the action of respondent authorities in not rejecting the application of unofficial respondent for establishing and running retail outlet in S.No.1317, Prashanth Nagar, Siddipet Municipality, Siddipet District by considering the petitioner’s representation dated 02.01.2020 as arbitrary, illegal, against principles of natural justice and in contrary to advertisement dated 11.10.2014 of the sixth respondent and the guidelines of Dealers for Regular and Rural Retail Outlets, 2014 and consequently direct the respondent authorities to reject the application of unofficial respondent by considering the petitioner’s representation dated 02.01.2020 and the conditions in their notification dated 11.10.2014 and the guidelines of Dealers for Regular and Rural Retail Outlets, 2014 and pass such other order or orders as this Hon’ble court may deem fit and proper in the circumstances of the case.”

¶5

Heard learned counsel for the parties.

¶6

It has been contended by the petitioner that the 7^th respondent does not have standards for grant of retail outlet, as admittedly the 7^th respondent is not having requisite land as per the specifications mentioned in the notification dated 11.10.2014.

¶7

Counsel for the petitioner had contended that in spite of the 7^th respondent not fulfilling the conditions specified in the said

¶8

AKS,J W.P.No.1146_2020

¶9

¶10

notification, the 5^th respondent issued letter of intent in favour of the 7^th respondent and entered into dealership agreement with the 7^th respondent. Challenging the same, the present writ petition is filed.

¶11

Counsel for the petitioner had contended that the petitioner could not apply for grant of retail outlet as admittedly in the subject premises, no land as per the specifications was available, and the action of the 5^th respondent in issuing letter of intent and also entering into dealership agreement in favour of the 7^th respondent in spite of the 7^th respondent not having requisite land as per the specifications, is illegal. Therefore, counsel for the petitioner contended that appropriate orders be passed in the writ petition directing the 5^th respondent to re-examine the case of the petitioner and pass appropriate orders on the representation submitted by the petitioner.

¶12

Counsel appearing for the 5^th respondent had contended that if only the petitioner submits a representation afresh, the 5^th respondent would consider the same and pass appropriate orders in accordance with law.

¶13

This Court, having considered the submissions of learned counsel for respective parties, is of the considered view that this writ petition can be disposed of directing the petitioner to submit a fresh representation to the 5^th respondent for grant of retail outlet, within a period of two weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. Upon such a representation being received, the 5^th respondent shall

¶14

AKS,J W.P.No.1146_2020

¶15

¶16

consider the same and pass appropriate orders, in accordance with law, in another eight weeks thereafter.

¶17

With the above directions, the writ petition is disposed of. No

¶18

order as to costs.

¶19

Pending miscellaneous petitions, if any, shall stand closed.

¶20

______________________________ ABHINAND KUMAR SHAVILI, J

¶21

4^th February, 2020

¶22

v v

Kola Muthyalu v. The State of Telangana and 6 others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Kola Muthyalu v. The State of Telangana and 6 others

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

S.Surendra, Vs Union of India

Myadala Bhaskar Goud Vs The State of Telangana, And 7 Others

Pasham Narsimhulu Vs Primary Agriculture Cooperative Society Limited

Hotel Swagath Vs Union of India

M/s. Charminar Foods Vs The Telangana State Industrial Infrastructure Corporation Limited And 3 Others

Smt. Boini Suguna Vs The Union of India