Disposed

Kagithala Gopal v. State of Telangana

Telangana HC21 Jun 2021WP/13559/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court disposed of a writ petition and an interim application filed regarding the seizure of shop leases. The Court directed petitioners to approach the Municipality to clear pending lease dues within a week, promising immediate unlocking of shops upon payment.

What did the court decide?

Directed petitioners to approach the Municipality with an undertaking to pay dues within one week; shops to be unsealed upon clearance of payment.

Kagithala Gopal Vs State of Telangana — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Telangana HC (2021)

¶1

HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT^HYDERABAD

¶2

(Special Original Jurisdiction)

¶3

MONDAY, THE TWENTY FIRST DAY OF JUNE TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY ONE

¶4

PRESENT

¶5

THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE A.ABHISHEK REDDY

¶6

wRtT PET|T|ON NO. 13559 0F 2021

¶7

Betwee n:

¶8

'1 . Kagithala Gopal, S/o. K. Buchanna, Aged about: 42 years, Occ: Business, Rio. 41-19912, NTR Colony, Sawaigudem, Wanaparthy, Mahabubnagar Dist,

¶9

Aswani Sonila Keshavulu, S/o. AS Narayana, Aged about: 52 years, Occ: Business, Rlo. 4-17, Nagavaram, [Vlahabubnagar Dist.

¶10

3 Khader Pasha, S/o.Abdul Wahab, Aged about: 44 years, Occ: Business, R/o.Old Bazar, Ward-B, Wanaparthy, Mahabubnagar Dist.

¶11

l,4d Abdul Aleem, S/o. tMd Abdul Ajeem, Aged about 41 years, Occ: Business, R/o.2-1 13, Old Bazar, Ward No.02, Wanaparthy, Mahabubnagar Dist.,

¶12

Lakshmi Vara Prasad, S/o. Suryanarayana, Aged about: 49 years, Occ: Business, Wanaparthy, I,4ahabubnagar Dist.

¶13

Aulndala Omkar, S/o. A. Keshavulu, Aged about 60 years, Occ: Business, R/o. 15-241D, Rai Gadda, Telugu Wada School, Ward 1, Wanaparthy, Mahabubnagar Dist.,

¶14

Lingam Balamani, W/o. L. Subbaiah, Aged about: 49 years, Occ: Business, R/o. 30-1 14, UCO Bank, Ward-1 1 , Wanaparthy, Mahabubnagar Dist.

¶15

...PETITIONERS

¶16

AND

¶17

State of Telangana, Rep. by its Principal Secretary, Municipal Administration and Urban Development Department, Secretariat, Hyderabad.

¶18

The Wanaparthy Municipality, Rep.by its Commissioner, Wanaparthy District, Telangana state

¶19

...RESP.NDENTS

¶20

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 one in the nature of Mandamus declaring the action of the respondent No.2 in seizing the shops belonging to the petitioners bearing No. A5, 46, A7, A8, A9, A11 and A1 2 situated at cellar portion of the IDSMP Municipal Shopping Complex, near Old Bus-Stand, Wanaparlhy Town and District as illegal, arbitrary and unco nstitutiona I and consequently direct 2nd respondent to renew the lease agreement of the petitioners by duly receiving the default lease amount and also unlock the shops bearing No. A5, A6, A7, AB, A9, A1 1 and A12 situated at cellar Portion of the IDSMP Municipal shopping complex, Near old Bus-Stand, Wanaparthy Town and District seized by them.

¶21

lA NO; 1 OF 2021

¶22

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 issue interim directions to the respondent No.2 forthwith to unlock the shops bearing No.

¶23

¶24

A5, 46, 47, 48, A9, A'l 1 and A12 situated at cellar portion of the IDSMP Municipat

¶25

Shopping Complex, near Old Bus-Stand, Wanaparthy Town and District belonging to the petitioners pending disposal of the writ petition.

¶26

Counsel for the Petitioners: SRI RAJAGOPALLAVAN TAYI

¶27

Counsel for the Respondent No.1: GP FOR MUNICIPAL ADMINISTRATION AND URBAN DEVELOPMENT

¶28

Counsel for the Respondent No.2: SRI N. PRAVEEN KUMAR, S.C. FOR MUNICIPALITIES

¶29

The Court made the following: ORDER

¶30

-r-._'

¶31

¶32

THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE A.ABIIISHEK REDDY

¶33

WRIT PETITION No. 13559 of 2O2L

¶34

ORDER:

¶35

¶36

Heard the learned counsel for the petitioners, learned Government Pleader for Municipal Administration and Urban Development for respondent No.1, and Sri N.Praveen Kumar, the learned Standing Counsel for Municipalities, for respondent No.2. With their consent, the Writ Petition is disposed of at the stage of admission itself-

¶37

Aggrieved by the action of the respondent No.2 in seizing the shops belonging to the petitioners situated at cellar portion of the IDSMP Municipal Shopping Complex, near Old Bus-Stand, Wanaparthy Town and District, and consequently to direct the respondent No.2 to renew the lease agreement of the petitioners duly receiving the default iease amount and also to unlock the shops of the petitioners, the present writ petition is filed.

¶38

t I

¶39

Having regard to the nature of controversy, the petitioners are directed to approach the competent authority of the respondent Municipality, within a period of one week from today, with an undertaking that they will pay the amounts due towards the monthly lease amounts. On receipt of such undertaking, the authorities shall intimate the quantum of amount due to the petitioners, upon which, the petitioners shall clear the due amounts, within a period of one week thereof. On such payment, the official respondents sha.ll unseal the shops of the petirioners. However, in case there is any dispute with regard to the amounts already paid by the petitioners, the authorities shall afford them an opportunity to submit the receipts evidencing the payment of rental/lease amounts earlier by the petitioners and the same shall be taken note of while determining the due amounts. If the

¶40

w P No 13559 of 2021

¶41

petitioners are willing to pay the entire due amounts immediately, the official respondents shall unseal the premises immediately, as soon as the amounts are paid and they need not wait as per the stipulated time.

¶42

With above directions, the Writ petition is disposed of.

¶43

Miscellaneous petitions pending in this writ petition, if any,

¶44

shall stand closed. There shall be no order as to costs.

¶45

SD/.K.ONESIM ASSISTANT REGISTRAR //TRUE COPY// l\l!, SECTION OFFICER

¶46

To, 1. The Principal secretary,^{Municipal Administration and urban Development} Deoartment, State of Teiangana,^{Secretariat, Hyderabad'}

¶47

1. ih5-co;misiioner,^{wana[arthy Municipatity, wanaparrhyDistrict,Telangana} State.

¶48

f One CC to Sri Rajagopallavan^{Tayi, Advocate} tO?VCl -

¶49

i*" CCr to Cp f6r-Municipal^{Administration and Urban Development, High Court} for the State of Telangana^{at Hyderabad} tOl'.ITl

¶50

s. One CC to Sri N. Praieen^{Kumar' S.C. For Municipalities (OPUC)} 6. Two CD Copies. MP ,. el

)

HIGH COURT

AAR,J

DATED:21 10612021

ORDER

WP.No.13559 ol 2021

o * l HE srA
Y
e ('
3 .) 2l JUltl 2ll2l
rt
:'r' l .'4,

¶59

DISPOSING OF THE WRIT PETITION WITHOUT COSTS

¶60

(\
q./

Kagithala Gopal v. State of Telangana

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Kagithala Gopal v. State of Telangana

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

Mrs. P Sharada Vs The State of Telangana

Mohd Afzal Khan Vs The State of Telangana and 4 others

Rameshethy Baswanth Vs The State of Telangana

Abdul Khalid Vs Sri ARvind Kumar

Mahant Ravinderdas Maharaj Vs The State of Telangana and 2 others

Smt. B. Sharada Vs Armoor Municipality