Dismissed

Sri Sai Krupa Catering and Maintenance Services, v. The State of Telangana

Telangana HC7 Jun 2021WP/12840/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

High Court disposed of a writ petition and two connected miscellaneous applications filed by a service provider seeking payment of pending bills and permission to remove groceries. The court directed respondents to consider a pending representation and pay bills within four weeks.

What did the court decide?

Directed respondents to consider the petitioner's representation dated 12.04.2021 and pay pending bills within four weeks from receipt of a copy of this order.

Sri Sai Krupa Catering and Maintenance… — Contract and Commercial Disputes | Telangana HC (2021)

¶1

HIGH COURT FOR THE S AT HYDEJiJiOF^TELANGANA Irpeciat Original Jurisdiction)

¶2

Yg]y^DtY^{rHE SEVENTH} DAY oF JUNE TWO THOUSAND AND rWCHrrV Oili'

¶3

PRESENT

¶4

THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE T,AMARNATH GOUD

¶5

Betwee n:

¶6

WRIT PETIT ION NO : 12840 OF ?021

¶7

i;?:::"ifi i%iii:H":'i,'#,tH:;a:8fi^'.",Tg'ft T|,?J,,';:i.:3^j:;gtl 45 years, R/o H No.1-B_40. na;enor"r,r.tr!"ar,'nlnllHfooy oi.t,i.t.

¶8

AND

¶9

...PETITIONER

¶10

Il,:_Pg]"^{of Telangana,Repby its principat} Secretary for^panchavat Rai And 2. Ilill Kurar devetopment -E^{:l r"ransana} SRTGN^rnstitution Bhauan^{oi {ui"i} f rri[.,a.a"it^{'ri=rlrJprii.ll,t.} c"i6,i,, gvoti"i,b;i-. Rep. by its ''", ^ '" a uommrssroner, police or rarters, Rajendra t iagar Ni'i;iaf , Hvieidf ai The State of reranoana rnititution 6iRiiir'b""[rffiJ'nt, Rep. by its chief

¶11

The Executive State of Tetanoana tnstitution'of Off icer. Fotice oua rteis, n4e;;r; Hi;; D;;;ilil;;t, N;&;'Ndnda Rep. t, Hyderabad.by its Joint D i recto r (Ad m i n i strat io n ), po r ice o ;,r;;s; Rrj ; ;iiZ' N:Jn ;.. rr.lb.io a i, n vleia uao

¶12

Petition under Articre 226 of the constitution of rndia praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed therewith, the High court may be pleased to issue a wrrt, order or direction, more in the nature of writ of Mandamus, declaring that the action of the respondents, in not paying the pending bills to a tune of Rs.10,09,433/-, inspite of making the detailed representation dared 121412021 , made by the petitioner to the 3rd respondent and further declaring that the inaction on the part of the respondents, in permitting the petitioner to allow to take the groceries which are in TSIRD Canteen Store on account of risk of getting worms due to not use the essentials in the canteen store, as illegal, arbitrary, contrary to law, contrary to the guidelines issued of the Agreement executed by the .4th respondent with the petitioner, violative of principles of natural justice, violative of Article 14 and 2'l of the Constrtution of lndia, by holding that the petitioner is eligible and entitled to Iift the groceries which are in TSIRD Canteen Store and also entitled to get the pending bills that are paid to the petitioner by the respondents, within a stipulated period and submit a report before this Honble Court.

¶13

lA NO: 1 OF 2021

¶14

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 respondents, to permit the petitioner, to allow to take the groceries which are in TSIRD Canteen Store on account of risk of getting worms due to not use the essentials in the canteen store, pending the disposal of the above Writ Petition.

¶15

IA N i2cJ^F2021

¶16

Petition under^{Section 151 CPC prayingthat in the circumstances stated in the} affidavit^filedi n support^{of the petition,the High Court maybe pleased to directthe} to^{pay the a sum of Rs 10'09'433/-' due to the petitioner'by duly} respondents, d isposing^{of t} herepresentationdatedl2l4l2o2l,madebythepetitionertothe3rd respondent, Pending^{the disposal of the above WritPetition} Counsel^{for the Petitioner:SRICH' VENKAT RAMAN}

¶17

Counsel^{for the Respondents:GPFOR PANCHAYATRAJ RURAL DEVELOPMENT}

¶18

The Court^{made the following:ORDER}

. ./a

i t

?HE HON'BLE SRI JUS?ICE T. AMARNA TH GOUD WRIT PETITIO N No.1284 o oF 2021

¶25

ORDER:

¶26

Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned C}ovcrnment Pleader.

¶27

It is the case of the petitioner that he ancl the 4rh respondent entered into agreement on 15.02.2017 with certain conditions for a period of one year and the same is extended lor another one vear without price hikes by the 2nd and 3'd respondents. The petitioner made a representation dated 12.04.202 1 to the 3.d respondent for payment of catering services bills on higher price on pandemic circumstances. Since no action has been initiated by the respondents, the present writ petition is filed.

¶28

Having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case, the writ petition is disposed of directing the respondents to consider the representation of the petitioner dated 12.04.202^{1 seekingto} r:elease the payments of the bills within^{four r.r'eeks lrom the date of} reccipt of a copv ol this order.^{There shall be ntl order as to costs'}

¶29

Misceilaneous^{petitions, if any,shallstandclosed}

¶30

sD/.N c#tl3#ililttis'l^AO

¶31

,TRUE^COPY//

¶32

To, 1. The Principal^{Secretaryror rancr'ayatnalAnd Rural development':::::i"il::.} or R^{u ra I D eveI opmen t'P oIi ce}

¶33

1. ? ["1 3 ),,T [:?J#t[u^{:l ls :li;i#t""J,?"'?':} " gliX"Ji,tll;Xli3.XflflLy8l:13 bi+3iJfr33'1, rnstitution^{or Rurar Deveropment'Porice}

¶34

3 o,".i'Jl;lF;j"";;;;^Gsgl V'l8l\ B',i,";:??t,unn"n" rnstitution^{or Rurar Deveropment'} 4 5 IJi:",#ti{s;":"ntrrfl :ll:tiitl+"tqtiriil-" 6 Two ccs to^{Gp for pun.n"yut fiuj !'i',i-rirrJr'o"u"ropment,Highcourtfor the stateof} i;;"q";;^{at Hyderabadlourl}

¶35

7, Two^{CD CoPies} 8.^{One SPareCoPY}

HIGH COURT

DATED:07/06/2021

ORDER

WP.No.12840 ol 2021

DISPOSING OF THE WP WITHOUT COSTS

¶42

1 E TA
(
?
ot) 18 Jlill t02l I'.1
bn

Sri Sai Krupa Catering and Maintenance Services, v. The State of Telangana

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sri Sai Krupa Catering and Maintenance Services, 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

G Ramavatharam Vs State of Telangana and 5 Others

Sri Nalla Venkateswara Rao Vs The State of Telangana

Ganapurapu Anjaiah Vs The State of Telangana and 4 Others

Smt . Subhadra Bai Vs The State of Telangana and 2 others

Smt. Tekam Kamala Bai and 7 others Vs The State Of Telangana and 5 others

Jogu Nageshwar Rao Vs The State of Telangana