Disposed

La Excellence IAS v. the State of Telangana and 2 Others

Telangana HC6 Mar 2020WP/2920/2020

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In a writ petition challenging a demand notice for unauthorized advertisement posters, the High Court discharged the petitioner due to failure to raise the discrepancy regarding the institute name without first bringing it to the respondent's notice.

What did the court decide?

Writ petition disposed of; liberty granted to petitioner to raise case before respondent Corporation.

La Excellence IAS Vs the State of Telangana and 2… — Writ and Judicial Review | Telangana HC (2020)

¶1

HIGH COUTT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA (Special Originat Jurisdiction'j'

¶2

FRIDAY,THE SIXTH OhY OT MARCH TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY

¶3

PRESENT

¶4

THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE CHALLA KODANDA RAM

¶5

WRIT PETITION N O:2920 OF 2O2o

¶6

Betwee n :

¶7

LA EXCELLENCE lAS, Represented by its pa rtner/Directo r A.Sarada, w/o. AVenugopala Rlddy Ag_ed about 63 years, R/o. j-1-46711, Gandhinaqar, Sa il,4a ruthiAnand Enclave. Flat No.501. Hyderabad 500 Og0

¶8

..,PETITIONER

¶9

AND

¶10

1 Tle^{S!a1eof Telangana,} lep.^{by Principal Secretary to Government,lVunicipal} Administration_ and U.D. Department, Government df Telangana, Secretariai Buildings. Saifabad, Hyderabad 500 004

¶11

2 Greater Hyderabad [,4unicipal Corporation, Represented by its Commissioner, Having Office at Tankbund, Hyderabad 500 029.

¶12

3 The Director, Enforcement, Vigilance and Drsaster l,4anagement, Grealer Hyderabad lvlunicipal Corporation, Office near Tankbund, Hyderabad 500 029.

¶13

...RESPONDENTS

¶14

Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of lndia praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed therewith, the High Court may be pleased to issue Wnt or Direction more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus declaring the action of the Respondents No.3 in issuing notice no.2483/DlR./EV and DM/CEC/GHMCl2020, dated 0310212020 as illegal, violation of Articles 14 and 21 ol the Constitution of lndia and principles of natural^justice , and thereby setaisde the Notice No. 2483/DlR./EV and DM/CEC/GHMC/2020, dated 0310212020 of the 3rd respondent.

¶15

lA NO: 1 OF 2020

¶16

Petition under Section 151 CPC^praying that in the circumstances^{stated in the} affidavit filed in support of the^{petition,the High Court may be pleasedto pending} disposal of the case to suspend the operatton of 3rd^{respondentsNoticeNo.} 2483/D I R./EVa nd D l//C EC/G^{H NIC I} 2020,^{d ated03 I 02 I 2020.}

¶17

Counsel for the Petitioner : SRI M.^{P. KASHYAP}

¶18

Counsel for the Respondent No.'!: GP^{FORMUNICIPAL ADMINISTRATION AND} URBAN DEVELOPMENT

¶19

Counsel for the Respondent^{Nos.2& 3: SRI N. ASHOK KUMAR, SC FOR GHMC}

¶20

'fhe Court mnde thc follorving: ORDER

¶21

THE HON'BLE^{SRI JUSTICECHALLAKODANDA RAM} WRIT PETITION^{No.2920 of 2020}

¶22

ORDEIT:

¶23

In this Writ Petition,^{petitioner, byname,} LA EXCELLENCE IAS,^{an institute, challenges demand notice} dated 03.02.2020^{issued by respondent No.3} Director, Enforcement, Vigilance &^{DisasterManagement, Greater} Hyderabad Municipal Corporation,^{Hyderabad, for payment of} Rs.2,69,000/- with respect to the^{unauthorizederection of} advertisement^posters.

¶24

Learned counsel for the^petitioner submits^{that there are} two institutions, by names, LA EXCELLENCE and LA EXCELLENCE IAS and the alleged adverlisement posters stuck were relating to LA EXCELLENCE institute but not LA EXCELLENCE IAS, the petitioner, and therefore, the irnpugned demand notice is unsustainable.

¶25

On the other hand,, leamed Standing Counsel for Greater Hyderabad Municipal Corporation appearing fbr respondent Nos.2 and 3 submits that the petitioner did not bring to the notice ofthe respondents with respect to the discrepancy, and therefore, prays fbr dismissal of this Writ Petition.

¶26

¶27

w P.N. ,e2o .?53i,

¶28

Adrnittedly, the petitioner had not brought to the notice of the respondent Corporation that the alleged advertisement posters are not relating to it.

¶29

In those circumstances, this Writ petition is disposed of granting liberty to the petitioner to put forward its case before the respondent Corporation. As and when the petitioner files such application, the authorities of the respondent Corporation sha, consider the sarne and pass necessaly orders in accordance with Iaw.

¶30

Subject to the above, this Writ petition is disposed of.

¶31

Miscellaneous applications, if any pending, shall also stand

¶32

closed. There shall be no order as to costs.

¶33

SD/.V,SUDHA ASSISTANT REGISTRAR

//TRUE COPY'

.l^!.

SECTION OFFICER

To,

1 . The Principal Secretary to Government, Municipal Administration and U.D. Department, State of Telangana, Government of Telangana, Secretariat Buildings, Saifabad, Hyderabad 500 004.

¶39

The Commissioner, Greater Hyderabad Municipal Corporation, Having Office at Tankbund, Hyderabad 500 029.

¶40

The Director, Enforcement, Vigilance and Disaster l,4anagement, Greater Hyderabad l,4unicipal Corporation, Office near Tankbund, Hyderabad 500 029.

¶41

One CC to Sri Ir/. P. Kashyap, Advocate [OPUC]

¶42

One CC to Sri N, Ashok Kumar, SC for GHIt/C, Advocate IOPUC]

¶43

Two CCs to GP for lVlunicipal Administration and Urban Development, High Court for the State of Telangana at Hyderabad. [OUT]

¶44

Two CD Copies

¶45

SM +

HIGH COURT

DATED:06/03/2020

ORDER

WP.No.2920 ot 2O20

-rE
Or
o
t) ,
.t$
)t
.Y .\<br>I L
a
.!

DISPOSING THE WP

WITHOUT COSTS

La Excellence IAS v. the State of Telangana and 2 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

La Excellence IAS v. the State of Telangana and 2 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

K.Venkata Srinath Vs the State of Ap., and Another

Y.Ravibabu Vs The Hyderabad Metropolitan Water Supply and Sewerage Board

Balkishan Biyani Vs The State of Telangana and Another

Smt. Preeti Gupta, Vs The State of Telangana

Rajpurohith Mod Singh Vs The state of Telangana

K. Raju Goud and 5 others Vs State of Telangana and 7 others