Dismissed

J.Rugvedh Reddy and another v. The State of Telangana and 2 others

Telangana HC1 Mar 2021WA/62/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court dismissed the writ appeal challenging a single judge's order that rejected interim applications seeking to suspend a notification extending the timeline for bar licence applications. The court held that the revision was justified due to poor response during the pandemic, dismissing the legitimate expectation claim as the State is entitled to manage fiscal matters prudently.

What the court decided

AI extract

J.Rugvedh Reddy and another Vs The State of Telangana and 2 others — Telangana HC (2021) — LawSathi Research

¶1

HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD

¶2

IMONDAY, THE FIRST DAY OF MARCH

¶3

TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY ONE

¶4

PRESENT

¶5

THE HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE HIMA KOHLI AND THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE B.VIJAYSEN REDDY

¶6

WRIT APPEAL NO. 62 OF 2021

¶7

Writ Appeal under clause^'15 of the Letters patent preferred against Order Dated 1210212021 Passed in l.A.Nos.1 and2of 2021 in WP.No.3378 of 2021 onthefileof the High Court.

¶8

Between:

¶9

J.Rugvedh Reddy, S/o. J. Bhaskar Reddy, Aged about 29 years, Occ: Business, Rlo. 1-2-56146, Advocates Colony, Himayatnagar, Hyderabad - 500029

¶10

P. Nirupam Reddy, S/o. P. Thirupathi Reddy, Aged about 27 years, Occ: Business, Rl"/o, Flat No. 203, Sai Thirumala Residency, Sripuram Colony, Hyderabad - 500036.

¶11

...APPELLANTS

¶12

AND

¶13

I The State of Telangana, Represented by the Principal Secretary Revenue Department, (Prohibition and Excise Department)

¶14

2 The Commissioner, Prohibition and Excise Department, Aabkari Bhavan, Nampally, Telangana State.

¶15

,> The Director Excise and Prohibition Department, Telangana S,.?.,fiErroOara

¶16

lA NO: 1 OF 2021

¶17

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 pleased to suspend orders passed in LA. Nos. 1 and 2 in W.P.No. 3378 of 2021, dated 12.02.2021 .

¶18

lA NO: 2 OF 2021

¶19

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 pleased to suspend the operation of notification vide CR.No.316812017lCPEfiSlF-1112711 dated 09.02.2021 issued by the Respondent No.3 for grant of prior clearances for establishment of 28 Bar, pending disposal of the main Writ Appeal. IAN 3 F2 21

¶20

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 pleased to direct the Respondents to consider the applications received as per the notification issued by the Respondent No.3 vide CR.No.3168/2017lCPElTSlF-1112711 dated 24.O1 .2021, pending disposal of the main Writ Appeal. Counsel for the Appellant: SRI R. ANURAG Counsel for the Respondents: GP FOR PROHIBITION AND EXCISE

¶21

The Court made the following: ORDER

¶22

Itcrn No.2

¶23

TIIIi I.ION' BI,Ii'I'I I F], ('II I I.]F .tUS't'lCE rItN4A KOilt.l ANI)

¶24

]'HIi IION'BLIi SRI .J USTICIi B. VI.'AYSEN REDI)Y

¶25

W.,,.No.62 ol'2021

¶26

JUDGMIi,NT: (Pcr the llon'blc thc Chicl .lusticr llinr liohli)

¶27

l. 'l'he present appeai is clirr'crcd againsr an ordcr. clarccl \2.02.2021^ passed b1, thc Iearnccl Singlc .luduc disnrissins l.As No. I an 2 o1- 202 I in W.P.No..liTli ol l0l I br the appellanrsi rvrir petitioncrs praying 1br. a cljrcction to bc issLrccl to Lhc respondents k) consider the applications rcceivecl as pcr the Notifrcation issued by the respondent No.3/Proh ibition ancl Irrcise Deparrrnent vide CircLrlar dated 24.01 .202 I ancl for suspendine rhe operarior.r ol- the Notillcation dated 09.02.202 l, issuecl by thc respondenr No.3/Pr.ohibition and F)xcise Departnrent, 1br grant of prior clearatrces lbr establishment ol 2B Bars respectively.

¶28

'fhe rnaitr grievancc ol'thc appcl)ants/wrir petitioncrs was that by revising the earlier Circular. thc responclent authoritics \,ere trving to accolnmodate sevcral othcr applicants to thcir disadt,irnLage rvherr thev are in similar business.

¶29

'['he saici applications \ c] o o])llosL'(l Lrl tlrc rcs pon clcrr ts/Statc that tlrel, had takcn a plca that th!. Il)pclllnls,rrr.ir ltctitioncr.s \erc orrly applicants like scvclal otlter.s unrl thcv coLrld not clirill any vcstecl right to challenge the. Notillcation darccl 09.02.202 I ancl rhar rhc

¶30

ll.A.Ato.62 oJ'2021

¶31

Poge I of4

¶32

rcspondent No.i r.r'as wcll etttporvered to extend the tirne for^valid reasons and in the instant case, the reason for revision of the Notification and extension of time was tl'lat the respondent authorities had received a poor response due to the COVID-19 Pandemic.

¶33

Upholding the stand taken by the respondents/State that there was sufficient .iustification in the explanation offered that due to COVID-19 Panden.ric. the resporrse to the earlier^{Notificationwas} poor and therefore, tirrther time rvas granted to the public at large vide Notification dated 09.02.202 I inviting larger^{participation} in^the tender prooess. the lcanled Single Judge dismissed the interirn appl i cations moved b.'- the^appeII ants/wri t^pctitioners.

¶34

The learned Goverrurent Pleader for Prohibition and^Excise appearing 1'or the respondents states that the present appeal as also^the writ petition t'iled by thc appellants/writ petitioners have been rendered infi'uctuous on accoLlnt of the subsequent events. He clarifies that a{iel the revised Circular was issued, 8,464 applications r.r,cre reccived fi-om various bidders and the bids were opened on 19.02.2021. 55 bidders have been finalised in the GHMC area to whom licences have yet to be issr-red, due to the ongoing elections for thc post o1'Ml-C.

¶35

We have heard learrrcd counsel {br the parties and perused the record as also the irnprugncd older,

¶36

Reliance placcd by' learned counsel for the appellants/writ petitiorlers on one of'the clar"rses ol the Notification dated 24.01 .2021

¶37

Poge 2 of 4

¶38

ll.A.No.62 ttf 2021

¶39

issued by the Department, particularly the Clause that states that"the Director, Prohibition & Excise or designated authorifi) may postpone to future date the dratv I of lots o/ 2B Bar b,v recording, in writing, the reasons e.g., poor response, curtel ,fbrntotion und other reasons thereof is lbund to be misplacecl. l'hc only cxplarration oltlrecl by thc respondents belble the learned Sing)e Juclge lbr cxtcrrclirrg the tirneline to receive applications for grant ol'licences was that. the respondents had received 7.383 applications as on 08.02.202 1. which was qr"rite a poor response due to the COVID- 19 Pandernic. As a result, tl're tirreline fbr receiving applicatiorrs rvas cxtcntlcd up to I 6.02.2021 . 'l'he very fact that the respondents nranaged to receive almost 1,000 additional applications over and abovc tl.rc numbcr o1'applications received by thern as on 08.02.202 l. sr.rbstantiatcs the subniission made by learned^(iovernment Pleader that there rvas enough justification {br revising the Notificatiorr and extcnding tire tiurc for inviting applications.

¶40

The appellants/writ petitioncls cannot clairn that there has bcen any violation o1'thc doctrine ol' Iegitirnate cxpcctation in the instant case, as sought to be ulged.^'t'his is purcly a liscal mattcr.^'l'he respondents/State is well entitled to concluct its conrmcrcial afj'airs as a prudent business person would and garncl as nruch revenue as is possible. 1'he reasoning olfered by the State is that there were grearcr chances of inviting more applications by exl,ending the timeline which is bome out from the nun-rber ol'applicaLions thar havc been reccivcd

¶41

lY./.No.62 oJ 2021

¶42

Prrgc -l o/^.1

¶43

subsequently. No fault^{catr bc lbund with the decisionof the} respondents/State to revise the^{schcdule and extend the tirnelinefor} receiving more applications^{lbr grantol the licencesfor establishment} ol28 Bars.

¶44

g. h-or the alblesaid reasons,^{we arc not inclined to interferewith}

¶45

thc impugned order.^{fhe prescnt appealis accordingly dismissed ln}

¶46

limine as meritlcss along^{with thc pending applications,if any'}

¶47

sD/^{.CH.VEN KATESWARULU} DEPUTY RlGrsrIAR //TRUE^COPY// SECTI ON OFFICER

¶48

To'1 ?;: 33J%t35i$'#l3fl^{rt*'"":flf l!!.'"?r*nn court ror the state or reransana} - at Hvderabad. IOUTI 3. Two'CD^CoPies.

MP .t) *_-

lhge 4 ol 4

ltt.,4.No.62 of 2021

HIGH COURT

DATED:01 10312021

ORDER

WA.No.62 o12021

'$t 2,, "<br>1 H E D TA
oo 1g ylAn 2021

¶57

DISMISSING THE WRIT APPEAL WITHOUT COSTS.

¶58

%t" (q

J.Rugvedh Reddy and another v. The State of Telangana and 2 others

Case brief

What is this about?

What the court decided

J.Rugvedh Reddy and another v. The State of Telangana and 2 others

Case brief

What is this about?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

M/s. Durga Trades, a Proprietorship Firm, Vs The State of Telangana and 8 others

Korra Hanmanthu Vs The State of Telangana and 3 others

Jakkula Padma Vs The State of Telangana and 3 Others

The Mandal Revenue Officer Vs Nagannagari Prathap Reddy

Smt. K. Satyavani Vs The High Court for the State of Telangana and 3 others

Smt Gantedi Anasuya Vs State of Telangana and 4 Others