Dismissed

Boddu Narsimhulu and 3 Others v. The State of Telangana and 4 Others

Telangana HC17 Nov 2021WA/88/2020

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Telangana High Court dismissed a writ appeal filed by the appellants against the Single Judge's order dismissing their internal application for stay. The Court held that no case was made out for interfering with the impugned order urging the Single Judge to decide the main writ petition promptly.

What did the court decide?

Stay on further proceedings pending the disposal of the main writ petition was not granted; writ appeal dismissed.

Boddu Narsimhulu and 3 Others Vs The State… — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Telangana HC (2021)

¶1

HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD

¶2

WEDNESDAY, THE SEVENTEENTH DAY OF NOVEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY ONE

¶3

PRESENT

¶4

THE HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE SATISH CHANDRA SHARMA AND THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE A. RAJASHEKER REDDY

¶5

WRIT APPEAL NO:88 oF 2020

¶6

writ Appeal under crause 15 of the Letters patent preferred against the order Dated 06-12-2019 in lA No:^'1 of 2019-w.p.No.27050 of 201 9 on the file of the High court.

¶7

Between:

¶8

1 po-d{g-N.argimhuru, s/o ylgagiri, aged about 62 years, occ. Business, r/o H.No.

¶9

^^{3-2-11otA, Meena Nagar, Bhdngiriown ano tVan6ar,yaoadri-Bhonol.-biliritt.} z ?q{oy Sudarshan, s/o yadasiriJaseo ioouiooleii;, o;;. B;rl;;;;"r16'ii.iio. s_ ^^{!-7?1.1,lstampur,Bhongir To-wnari'ouanaai,Vaiiaari'e-ho;oir-Di;iri;i" " ' ' "} r. 6ooou upender, s/o.yadagiri, aged 57 years, Occ. Busii'ess, r/o H.No., 7_44, Rajapet Viilage and Manda[ yadSOri Bhoiqir District.

¶10

- Business, r/o

¶11

El,$3:,i#Jft1?,li[?lf,r;'"'"Xa13glil"ivir35ffH,:irr,:8,.f,,.occ ...APPELLANTS./PET|TIONERS

¶12

AND

¶13

The state of reranoana,.rep. by its principal secretary, Department of welfare of ^^{Wonl.n,Qlil!rgn,} "oisarireci-an6 SehirjiCTtEen-secnitiriai, Hvaeijoda.'-"-' 2. The Spetat rribunar for Maintenace ano werta're, oi p;,."]G;;j'$iilr citizens and The Revenue Divisional Officer, Bhongir yadbdri ghongir D[tn-ci.^{-' -''^}

¶14

The Tahsildar, Rajapet Mandal, yadadri BFonqliOistrict

¶15

The Station House offcer, Rajapet police Station, yadadri Bhonoir District.

¶16

Boddu Yadagiri, s/o Late chahdraiah, aged about so tearsliio Frit r.ro. irjg,

¶17

Prashanthi Residency Ramanthapur, Ariberpet, *yOdriUa<i.^-

¶18

..,RESPONDENTS

¶19

lA NO: 2 OF 2020

¶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 grant stay of all further proceedings pursuant to the impugned order bearing procs. No. E/1 100/2018-2 dft. 231712019 including the eviction of the petitioners houses bearing H.No. 7-41, 7-47 and 7-51 situated at Rajapet village and Mandal, yadadri Bhongir District, pending disposal of the main Writ Appeal, and to pass Counsel for the Appellants: SRI KARUNAKAR REDDy

¶21

Counsel for Respondent Nos. 1 & 2: Gp FOR SOCIAL WELFARE

¶22

Counsel for Respondent No, 3: Gp FOR REVENUE

¶23

Counsel for Respondent No.4: GP FOR HOME

¶24

Counsel for Respondent No. 5: SRI MOHD. ZAFARULLAH

¶25

The Court delivered the following: JUDGMENT

¶26

HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD

¶27

¶28

WEDNESDAY, THE SEVENTEENTH DAY OF NOVEMBER

¶29

TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY ONE

¶30

PRESENT

¶31

THE HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE SATISH CHANDRA SHARMA AND

¶32

THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE A, RAJASHEKER REDDY

¶33

WRIT APPEAL NO: 88 OF 2020

¶34

Writ Appeal under clause 15 of the Letters Patent preferred against the Order Dated 06-12-2019 in W.P.No.27050 of 2019 on the file of the High Court.

¶35

Between:

¶36

Qoddu Narsimhulu, s/o Yadagiri, aged about 62 years, occ. Business, r/o H.No.

¶37

^^{3-2-1 16/A,Meena Nagar, Bhongir Town and Mandal, Yadadri Bhongir District.} 2. Boddu Sudarshan, s/o Yadagiri, aged about 60 years, occ. BusinesJ, r/o H.No. 3-

¶38

_ !-7911^{,lslampur,Bhongir Town and Mandal,Yadadri Bhongir District.} 3. Boddu Upender, s/o Yadagiri, aged 57 years, Occ. Busiiess, r/o H.No., 7-44, Rajapet Village and Mandal, Yadadri Bhongir District.

¶39

Boddu Satyanarayana, s/o Yadagiri, aged about 54 years, occ. Business, r/o H.No. 7-51, Rajapet vilrase and Mandal, Yadadri tn:Xt5Ri['ffs./pE,,oNERS

¶40

AND

¶41

The State_of Telangana, rep. by its Principal Secretary, Department of Welfare Of

¶42

^{YVomen, Children, Disabled andSenior Citizen, Secretariai,Hyderabad.}

¶43

1. The Special rribunal for Maintenace and welfare, of parents 5nd senior citizens and The Revenue Divisional Officer, Bhongir^yadadri Bhongir District.

¶44

The Tahsildar, Rajapet Mandal, Yadadri Bhongir District.

¶45

The Station House Offcer, Rajapet Police Stat-ion,^yadadri Bhongir District.

¶46

Boddu Yadagiri, s/o Lale Chandraiah, aged about^gO years, r/o F"lat No. 1 09,

¶47

Prashanthi ResidencyRamanthapur,Amberpet, Hydrirabad.

¶48

...REspoNDENTS

¶49

lA NO: 2 OF 2020

¶50

Petition under section 15i cPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High cou( may be pleased to grant stay of all further proceedings pursuant to the impugned order bearing procs. No.E/1 100i2018-2 dft. 2317/2019 including the eviction of the petitioners houses bearing H.No. 7-41 , 7-47 and 7-sl situated at Rajapet village and Mandal, yadadri Bhongir Distrlct, pending disposal of the main Writ Appeal, aeC{€ffi

¶51

Counsel for the Appellants: SRI KARUNAKAR REDDY

¶52

Counsel for Respondent Nos. 1 & 2: Gp FOR SOCIAL WELFARE

¶53

Counsel for Respondent No. 3: GP FOR REVENUE

¶54

Counsel for Respondent No. 4: GP FOR HOME

¶55

Counsel for Respondent No. 5: SRt MOHD. ZAFARULLAH

¶56

The Court delivered the following: JUDGMENT

¶57

¶58

THP HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE SATISH CIIANDRA STIARMA AND

¶59

THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE A.RA;IASHEKER REDDY

¶60

W.A.No.88 of 2O2O

¶61

JUDGMENT: Per^{theHon'bte rhz} chjef^{rusttce satish chandroshama)}

¶62

The present writ appeal is arising out of the order dated 06.12.2019 passed by a learned Single Judge in LA.No.1 of 2019 in W.P.No,27O5O of 2019.

¶63

The facts of the case reveal that a writ petition was preferred by the present appellants belore the learned Single Judge being aggrieved by the order passed by the Special Tribunal for Maintenance of Wellare of Parents and Senior Citizens in respect of an old person, aged about 90 years, who is the father of^the present appellants and who was neglected and forced to starve. In the writ petition, an application i.e., I.A.No. 1 of 2Ol9 was^preferred to stay the order passed by the Special Tribunal dated 23.07.2019. The learned Single Judge has dismissed the application lor^stay holding lhat primarily it is the duty of the^writ petrtioners / appellants to take care of their father who is^aged aboul 9O years.

¶64

The lact remains that lhe r,i'rit petition is still^{pending. This} Court has carefully gone through the record^{of the case and is of} the opinron that no case is made out for^{interfering withthe} impugned order passed in the application.^{However,the learned} Single Judge is requested to decide^{the writ petition itself at an} early date.

¶65

With the aforesaid, the writ appeal stands dismissed.

¶66

Pending miscellaneous applications, if any, shall stand

¶67

closed.

¶68

SD/.CH.VEN KATESWARU LU DEPUry REGISTRAR

¶69

//TRUE COPY//

¶70

SECTION OFFICER

¶71

To, 1. The Section Officer, Writ Non-Service Section, High Court for the State^of Telangana

¶72

The Section Officer, Writ Posting Section, High Court for the State of Telangana
3. One CC to Sri Karunakar Reddy Advocate [OPUC]

¶73

Two CCs to GP For Social Welfare, High Court for the State of Telangana. [OUT]

¶74

Two CCs to GP For Revenue, High Court for the State of Telangana. [OUT] 6. Two CCs to GP For Home, High Court for the State of Telangana. [OUT] 7. One CC to Sri Mohd. Zafarullah, Advocate^(OPUC)

¶75

B. Two CD Copies

¶76

One Spare Copy IVBC sab &-

¶77

HIGH COURT

¶78

DATED: 1711112021

¶79

HE sl.q ,€
C)
(
,JrJ 0 6 DEC202|
t *
o.!sparc.

¶80

JUDGMENT

¶81

WA.No.88 of 2020

¶82

DISMISSING THE WRIT APPEAL

¶83

WITHOUT COSTS

Boddu Narsimhulu and 3 Others v. The State of Telangana and 4 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Boddu Narsimhulu and 3 Others v. The State of Telangana and 4 Others

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

Kondareddy Vishnumurthy Vs The State of Telangana and 5 Others

The Director (Personnel, Administration and Welfare) Vs Sri. T.Krishna Murthy

Mayur Mundra Vs State of Telangana

Mumtaz Yarud dowla Wakf and Another Vs The State of Telangana and 6 Others

Syed Sadiq Vs Rajiv Vidya Mission (Ssa)

M/s.Hyderabad Precision Mgf.Co. Pvt. Ltd. Vs The Union of India