Dismissed

Mystic Hills Owners Association, v. The State of Telangana

Telangana HC12 Nov 2020WP/37623/2015

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court dismissed a writ petition filed against multiple respondents including Excise and Municipal authorities challenging the alleged violation of liquor licensing norms. The Court held the petition to be infructuous as it did not survive for adjudication.

What did the court decide?

Writ petition dismissed as infructuous; miscellaneous petitions closed.

Mystic Hills Owners Association, Vs The State of… — Landlord and Tenant | Telangana HC (2020)

¶1

HIGH COURT FOR THE S'i A T-H YDE JfJ:DOF^TELANGANA ( Dpeciat Original Jurisdiction)

¶2

THURSDAY, THE TWELFTH DAY OF NOVEA/BER TWO THOUSAND AND TWENT'

¶3

PRESENT

¶4

THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE P. NAVEEN RAO

¶5

Between:

¶6

WRIT PETITION NO: 37623 0F 2015

¶7

1 A,4ystic Hills Owners Association,, Viila No.63, Sy.No..t011l.10p, Moosaoer. Kukatpaly, Hyderabad, Ranga R'eddy oisiiici,' R6p.'-b;^{'ii; '"S"'";;ry'ffiii} Ivla ngalampalli.

¶8

2 K.Raghurama Raju,_ S/o Suryanarayana Raju,, aged about 47 years, Rl/o Villa No.47, IVystic Hitts Gated Coinmuni[y, tuoosipet, kukai,;[t, Hyd;;6;;, nr;;; Reddy District.

¶9

3 G.Sandfep, S/o Chandramohan,, Aged about 45 years, Villa No.39. Mvstic Hiils Gated Community, [Vloosapet, Kukarpaily, Hyderab'ad, nanga neOOy'Oi++f_r_,

¶10

AND

¶11

The State of_Telangana. Excise Department, Secretariat Buildings, Secretariat Hyderabad, Rep. by its Principal Secretary.

¶12

The Commissioner, Prohibition & Excise Department, State of Telangana, Hyderabad.

¶13

The Deputy Commissioner, Prohibition & Excise, Department, Ranga Reddy District.

¶14

The Su perintendent,, Prohibition & Excise Department, Medchal, Ranga Reddy District.

¶15

The Greater Hyderabad ltlunicipal Corporation,, Tank Bund Road, Hyderabad, Rep. by its Commissioner.

¶16

Sri A.Narsing Rao, S/o Pedda Jeet Rao,, aged about 34 years, Rl/o D.no.1'1-5205/1 , Bhavani Nagar, [/oosapet, Hyderabad.

¶17

A.Dharmesh, S/o Pedda Jeet Rao,, H.No.11-5-1205/1 , Bhavani Nagar, I/oosapet, Hyderabad.

¶18

A.Yelender, S/o Late A.Nagesh, aged about 1B years,, Occ: Student,

¶19

A.Srikanth, S/o Late A.Nagesh, aged about 16^years,,

¶20

The respondents No.B & I Being misrepresented by their Maternal Guardian Mother Smt.A.Bayamma, W/o Late A.Nageshwar Rao, Aged about 43^years, R/o H.No. 1 2-7-70, Moosapet, Hyderabad.

¶21

l0.A.Venkatesh Yadav, S/o Late A.Yadaiah,, Aged about 43 years, R/o D.No.12-770, N/oosapet, Hyderabad.

¶22

'1 l.A.Srisailam, Sio Late A.Yadaiah, Aged about 35 years,, R/o H.No.12-7-70, lvloosapet, Hyderabad.

¶23

l2.S.Dattatreya S/o Babu Rao,, Licensee of lr,4/s Gayatri Wines, Plot No.'13, Sy.No. 1 01 1/1 0P, Moosapet, Kukatpally, Hyderabad, RanOa ReddV.pl$3ho=r*

¶24

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 a Writ, Order or Direction more^particularly one in the nature of Writ of lt/andamus declaring the inaction of the respondent Nos. 2 to 5 in not taking action against the^'12th respondent who is carrying Liquor Shop in the name and style M/s Sri Gayatri Wines in the residential^premises in Plot No.13 in Sy.No.1011/10P, Mystic Hills, Moosapet, Balanagar Mandal, Ranga Reddy District is illegal, arbitrary and in violation of the provisions of Greater Hyderabad lVlunicipal Corporation Act, 1955 and Rules made thereunder and also in violation of the Provisions of Andhra Pradesh Excise (Grant of License of selling by Shop and conditions of license)

¶25

Rules,20l2andconsequentlydirecttherespondentNos.2to5topreventthel2th respondent to carry^{out the Liquor Business in Plot No.13 in Sy.No.1011/',10P,} Ivlystic Hills, Moosapet,^{Balanagar Mandal, Ranga Reddy District'}

¶26

WPMP. NO: 48396 OF^201s

¶27

petit'on under SeCtion t St CPC praying that in the circumstances^{stated in} the affidavit filed in support^{of the petition,the High court may be pleasedto direct} the respondent Nos. 2 to 5^{to preventthe 12th respondentto carry out the Liquor} Business in Plot No.13 in Sy.No.1011/10P,^{Mystic Hills,Moosapet, Balanagar} It/andal, Ranga Reddy District^pending disposal of the above^{writ petition.}

¶28

WPMP. NO: 16866 OF 2016

¶29

Petition under Section^'1 51 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased to direct the Respondent Nos. 1 to 4 to revoke the liquor shop license granted to the 12th Respondent and further direct the Respondent No. 5 to seal the premises of the 1 2th Respondent

¶30

Counsel for the Petitioner: SRI N. ASHWANI KUMAR

¶31

Counsel for Respondent Nos. 1 to 4: GP FOR PROH|BITION & EXCISE

¶32

Counsel for Respondent No. 5: SRI SAMPATH PRABHAKAR REDDY SC FOR GHMC

¶33

Counsel for Respondent Nos. 6 to 11: SRI KOWTURU PAVAN KUMAR

¶34

Counsel for Respondent No.12: SRI KOWTURU VINAy KUMAR

¶35

The Court made the following: ORDER

¶36

-2-

¶37

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE P.NAVEEN RAO

¶38

WRIT PETITION No.37623 of 20L5

¶39

ORDER:

¶40

Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the cause in the writ petition does not survive for adjudication and the writ petition has become infructuous.

¶41

Recording the said^{submission, the writ petitionis dismissed'}

¶42

Miscellaneous^{petitions, if any pending, standclosed'}

¶43

SD/. I.NAG^ALAKSHMI ASSISTANT^REGIS

//TRUE^COPY//

SE OFFICER

'o", "^{one cc to sr sampa}

¶48

i^{"9i: gg'q"Ei5tt,,gffi-[q;:l;^,#",-- re angana}

o. l?uoto^copi"'

IUBC at

HIGH COURT

DATED: 1211112020

',t
iHg sr4)r
Q^
oo 21N0Vm t1
.""l''/
* JR
t)E,j pATCH
L

¶54

ORDER

¶55

WP.No.37623 of 2015

¶56

DISMISSING THE WRIT PETITION

¶57

WITHOUT COSTS

¶58

Mystic Hills Owners Association, v. The State of Telangana

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Mystic Hills Owners Association, 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

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Shaik. Sayeed Bin Hasan Ali Amoodi Vs The State of Telangana

Shaik Shadik Pasha Vs The State of Telangana And 4 Others

Dr. Raj Kumar Vemula and Another Vs The State of Telangana and 4 Others

Smt Selam Venkatramana, Vs The Excise and Prohibition Department

M/s. Konstruct Reality India Pvt. Ltd. Vs State of Telangana and 6 others

N. Srinivas Yadav Vs The State of Telangana