Dismissed

M/s. G.G.Tyres and Tubes Pvt. Ltd., v. The Government of India Ministry of Commerce and Industry

Telangana HC24 Aug 2021WP/12474/2011

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Petitioners sought to withdraw a writ petition challenging a Bureau of Indian Standards notification as unconstitutional. The High Court permitted the withdrawal and dismissed the petition accordingly without costs.

What did the court decide?

Permission to withdraw writ petition with liberty to pursue remedies in accordance with law.

M/s. G.G.Tyres and Tubes Pvt. Ltd., Vs The… — Writ and Judicial Review | Telangana HC (2021)

¶1

¶2

HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD

¶3

(Special Original Jurisdiction)

¶4

TUESDAY, THE TWENTY FOURTH DAY OF AUGUST TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY ONE

¶5

PRESENT

¶6

THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE ABHINAND KUMAR SHAVILI

¶7

WRIT PETITION NO: 12474 OF 2011

¶8

Between:

¶9

1 M/s. G.G.Tyres & Ty.bes Pvt. Ltd,, Having its Office & Works: Sy.No.1356, Nandigaao-n Village, Kothur Mandal, Mahabubnagar District RepresehteO Uy its Director, Vimal Agarwal.

¶10

2 M/s. Arrow Rubber Factory, A partnership firm,, Having its office at Chittoor - Tirupathi,Vavil Thota Raod,'Ne;r Raiwry Citei,^prttaiapiltJ nlinOir, Ciiiitoor District, Represented by its lt4anaging Parther, Smt. V.Karuna.

¶11

3 M/s Kodang{ Rubbe-r Factory,,-A partnership firm, Retd. Office at Sy.No.149/1 , H.yderabad^ Road,^.Ko_dangal, Mahaboobnagar District, Represenied by its Managing Partner Ch. Ram Chandra Reddy^-

¶12

4 M/s. Polestar Rubber lndustry,, A proprietdry concern, Regd. Office at E-1 , lDA, K€ttedan, Hyderabad, Represented by its Pr6prietor, Mohdl Muneeruddin

¶13

E M/s. Apple Polymers,, A Partnership Firm, rei;d. Office at Sy.No.S56/5, Chittoorlirupathi, Vavilthota Road, Puthalapattu Mandal, Chittoor District, Represented

¶14

by its Partner' V Vinay Kumar Reddy

¶15

...pETrroNERS

¶16

ANO

¶17

The Government of lndia Ministry of Commerce and lndustry, (Department of lndustrial Policy and Promotion) Udyog Bhavan, New Delhi,'Representet Oy its Secreta ry

¶18

Bureau of lndian Standard_s,, Manak Bhavan, 9 Bahadur Shah Zatar Marg New Delhi, Represented bv its Director General

¶19

Bureau of lndian Staridards,, Manak Bhavan, 9 Bahadur Shah Zatar Marg New Delhi, Represented by Sri r.V. singh, seniorscientific officer a Heaa (iia"Jp6rt Engineering)

¶20

The A. P.State Road Transport_Corporation, Musheerabad, Hyderabad, Represented by its Managing Direitor

¶21

...RESPONDENTS

¶22

Petition under Article 226 oI lhe 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 Mandamus, to declare the impugned principle notification issued in Gazette of lndia (Extraordinary) vide s.o. No.2953 (E) dated 1 9.1 1 .2009, subseguently amended vide s.o. No.1057 (E) dated 11.0s.2010 and amendment order in Gazette of lndia vide No.2330 dated 09.11.2010 and the Letter dated 0s.04.2011 of the 1st Respondent, as u nconstitutional, violative of Article 14 & 19 (i) (g) of constitution of lndia, violative of principles of natural justice and contrary to the provisions of Bureau of lndian Standards Act, 1986 and consequen y set aside the same

¶23

WPMP. NO : 15182 0l: 2011

¶24

Petition under {lection 151 CPC^praying that in the circumstances^{stated in the}

¶25

affidavit filed in support of the^petition, the^{High Court may be pleasedto suspend the} impugned principle notification issued in Gazette^{of lndia (Extraordinary)videS.O.} No.2953 (E) dated 19.11.2009, subsequehtly^{amendedvide S.O,No.'1057(E) dated} 1 1 .05.2010 and amendment Order in Gazette^{of lndia videNo.2330dated 09.11 .2010} and the Letter dated Clj,04.2011^{of the 1st Respondent, pending disposal of the Writ}

¶26

Petition

¶27

Counsel for the Petitioners: SRI^{B. CHANDRASEN REDDY}

¶28

Counsel for Respondent No. 1: SRI^{N. RAJESHWAR RAO} ASSISTANT SOLICITOR GENERAL

¶29

Counsel for Respondr:nt Nos.^{2 & 3: SRI O. MANOHER REDDY}

¶30

Counsel for Respondr:nt No.^{4: Dr. K MANMADHA RAO}

¶31

The Court made the fc, lowing: ORDER

¶32

THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE^{ABHINANDKUMAR SHAVILI}

¶33

WRIT PET ITION No.12474 of^20l l

¶34

ORD ER:

¶35

Counsel for the^{petitionersseekspermissionto withdrawthis} writ petition with a liberty to the^petitioners to^{pursuetheirremedies} in accordance with law.

¶36

Permission is accorded and^{the writ petitionis, accordingly,}

¶37

dismissed as withdrawn^{giving liberty to the petitioners to pursuetheir}

¶38

remedies in accordance with^{law. No orderas to costs.}

¶39

Pending miscellaneous^{petitions, if any,shall stand closed.}

¶40

SD/-I.NAGALAKSHMI

¶41

ASSISTANT REGISTRAR ,TRUE COPY// ( li,

¶42

SECTION OFFICER

¶43

¶44

One CCtoS ri B Chandrasen Reddy^Advocate [OPUC] 2. One CCtoD r K Manmadha Rao) Advocate [OPUC] 3. One CCtoS ri Namavarapu Raleswara^{Rao, Assistbnt Solicitor General (OPUC)} 4. One CCtoS ri N Srinivas Advocate^(OPUC) 5. One CCtoS ri O Manoher ReddY^Advocate [OPUC] 6. Two CD Copies 7. One Spare copy IMBC,L/ 4

¶45

HIGH COURT

¶46

DATED: 2410812021

¶47

\ .r:.g STa, 6: \ ,<br>li
I
24 sEP?021 i
/;.
ORDER

¶48

WP.No.12474 of 2011

¶49

DISMISSINGi THE WRIT^{PETITIONAS WITHDRAWN,}

¶50

WITHOUT COSTS

¶51

)
I
4? 9oAt
/)

M/s. G.G.Tyres and Tubes Pvt. Ltd., v. The Government of India Ministry of Commerce and Industry

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

M/s. G.G.Tyres and Tubes Pvt. Ltd., v. The Government of India Ministry of Commerce and Industry

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

M/s. B.V.K. Multiplex Vs State of Telangana

Smt.M.Katyayani Vs State of Telangana and 5 Others

Anil, Kumar Denduluri, Vs The State of Telangana

Laurel Private Iti and another Vs The Director General and 2 others

K.Venugopal, Hyderabad Vs Sr.Div.Manager, Lic, Hyderabad and Anr.

Kumari Aredla Varsha Vs The State Bank of India