Disposed

S. Pandu Ranga Reddy v. The State of Telangana and 3 Others

Telangana HC2 Dec 2021WP/31512/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The single-judge division disposed of a writ petition challenging the shift of a fruit market. The court recorded the petitioner's willingness to move and the respondents' concession to allot land, directing them to process the application within a week.

What did the court decide?

Directed petitioner to apply for allotment of land at new market yard and directed respondents to allot land within one week of application.

S. Pandu Ranga Reddy Vs The State of Telangana… — Writ and Judicial Review | Telangana HC (2021)

¶1

HIGH COURI FOR IHE 57 on.i,;i 6,I5ifj ],.,!#"o,flIf Ar Hy D E R AB AD

¶2

IHURSDAY,IHE{ rworirouiiiSfl?",#.?iTDEcEMBER

¶3

PRESENT

¶4

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE T. VINOD KUMAR

¶5

Between:

¶6

WR|T^pET|TION NO: 31512 OF 2021

¶7

if,l[i:i"p,i]ilE;;a,,l,1B"irl?'+J*?tx?Yif; ii.9J;,f,:"8,,?',]ri3','.6l^cupation. Medchal

¶8

AND

¶9

.,.PETITIONER

¶10

1 . The State of Telangana, Represented bv its prin goqpl,jtio'.i oIi"'Xil";t, "iJt,iL"iei,iirji.;l:,b.ifl? :ff,fitary, Asricurture and Hyderabad, Telangana-S'ggOOg.^{--'-si'|vr,vr'</sup> ^ z. uommtssioner and Director of Agricultural Marketing, 2nd floor, T.S. Housing Corporation Buitdino, uraugi,i, fifi;y;fi;;;l''iyoerabad, Tetanoana 3 Agricurturar Market^"com mifi ;,' Gililil;i#,' r?, I nriii.t, EllEtiiir r} .^{Hyderabad, Rep. by lts} crrJiinian.^- I I urr rvrdr ^trr'' \rauorannaram, 4 The Selection Grad'e Secretaryl person rn-charge, Agricurturar Market Committee, Gaddianaram, ny6"rauao, r"ri'iiglY,?'^, "" " "

¶11

;;;.NDENTS

¶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 preased to lose a writ, order or Direction, more particurarry one in the nature of writ of Mandamus, declaring the action of Respondents by shifting the present fruit market from Gaddiannaram to Koheda when the present agreement is still in force, in violation of the same, where the petitioner had and continues to incur losses due to closure of his weigh bridge at Fruit market in Gaddiannaram, as illegal, arbitrary and in violation of Articles 14,21 of constitution of lndia and against the principles of natural justice and consequently to direct the respondents to extend the lease period (agreement) entered between the petitioner and Respondent No.3 vide Doc.No.1085211992, dt.24109/1992 for another 15 years where the present lease period is set to expire on September 2022 and also to permit the petitioner to install weigh Bridge at new market yard at Koheda by allotting suitable land. lA NO: 1 OF 2021

¶13

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^petitioners representa|on d|.2210212021 and 1010812021, pending outcome of the main Writ Petition.

¶14

Counsel for the Petitioner: SMT. B. RACHNA REDDY

¶15

Counsel for the Respondent Nos.1 & 2: GP FOR AGRICULTURE

¶16

Counsel for the Respondent Nos.3 & 4: SMT G. NEERAJA REDDY,

¶17

SC FOR AGRICULTURAL MARKET COMMITTEE

¶18

The Gourt made the following: ORDER

¶19

TIIE HON'BLE^{SRI JUSTICE T' VINOD KUMAR} Writ onNo.315^{L2 of2021}

¶20

ORDER:

¶21

This Writ^{Petition is filed to declarethe inaction of the} respondents^{inshifting the present} fruit market^from Gaddiannaram^{to Koheda,as illegal'}

¶22

2.Heardlearnedcounselforthepetitioner'learned Government^{Pleader forAgriculture} appearing^for respondents | & 2,^{and SmtG Neeraja} Reddy, learned Standing Counsel^{appearingfor respondents 3 & 4'}

¶23

Petitioner contends that^{he had entered into an} agreement with the 3'd^{respondent underwhich petitioner} was granted licence for installation^{of weigh-bridge in 216 sq'} yards at the entrance of the Gaddiannaram Fruit Market under agreem ent d1.24.09. 1992, which was valid for a^period of 30 years and in the meantime, the respondents are taking steps to temporariiy shift the fruit market to Batasingaram Logistic Park, Abdullapurmet Mandal, without taking any steps to shift the same to l(oheda, whereat a ne"r' market 1'ard was proposed to set up.

¶24

Petitioner further contends that upon being allotted the land of an extent of 216 sq. yards at the entrance of fruit market at Gaddiannaram, petitioner had set up a 30 MT elettric weigh bridge and 3T platform scale, but due lo sudden shifting of the fruit market from Gaddiannaram to

¶25

¶26

Batasingaram without shifting the same on permanent basis to Koheda, petitioner's business of running a weigh bridge is being affected resulting incurring of losses.

¶27

When the matter is^{taken up for hearing, learned} Standing Counsel^{appearingfor respondents 3 & 4 submitted} that the challenge^{made to the shifting of Fruit Market from} Gaddinarram^{to Batasingaram LogisticPark is pending before} theDivisionBenchofthisCourt'whereinargumentsa-re compieted^{and the matter is reservedfor orders'}

¶28

It is further^{contendedby the learned StandingCounse'l} that^{pending decisionof the Division Bench in the said Writ} Petition^{filed chailengingthe shifting of fruit market 'vard' if} the petitioner^{intends to moveto Batasingaram Logistic Park'} whereat the^{nen' fruit market is being proposed' as the} existing^{iand of fruit marketis donatedto the Government for} constructionofaMulti-SpecialityHospitai,therespondents would allot^{land/slotto the petitioner' whereat petitioner can} ca,rry on^{his businessby settingup the weigh-bridgefor the} remalning^{period of the lease agreement'}

¶29

7 . Learned^{counsei for the petitioner' on instructions'has} expressed^{petitioner's willingnessto move to the fruit market} yard at^{Batasingaram Logistic Park' AbdullapurmetMandal} electrical^{weigh-bridgefrom}

¶30

by shifting^thePresent Gaddiannaram^{market to carry on business for the remaining} iease Period.

¶31

¶32

¶33

Recording the above said concession given by the respondents for allotting land/slot to the petitioner in the new fruit market yard at Batasingaram Logistic park and also the willingness expressed by the petitioner to move thereto, petitioner is directed to make an application u.ithin a week from today to the respondents 3 & 4 seeking alrotment of land/slot for setting up of the electrical weigh_bridge. Upon such application being made by the petitioner, the respondents 3 & 4 are directed to allot land/slot to the petitioner in the new Fruit Market yard at Batasingaram Logistic park, Abdullapurmet Mandal, within a further period of one week thereafter.

¶34

Subject to above directions, this Writ Petition disposed of. No order as to costs. IS

¶35

1 0, Con sequently, miscellaneous petitioners pending, if arry, shall stan d cl OS e

¶36

¶37

SDAL.SIVA PARVATHI ASSISTAN T REGISTRAR //TRUE COPY// To, t - 1. 2. l!: f,^{l;[#3 ],} i%'#:i,.' " rk e t co m m i ttee, c a a o i " n n ",a,.lt'T',] ;::'^" J- 4. ffifgfl :H$H+Hi ffi^r**r3iit:: J;_,,, 5. to smt G'. Neeraja Reddy, SC forAgriculturat Market committee L$FS? 6. Two C6 Cooies 7. One Spare bopy CHR <{

......-.--_-

HIGH^COURT

DATED:0211212021

ORDER

W.P.No.31512 ol²⁰²¹

1 HE SI4
At
Z
3 0 B DEC202|
*
5 p ?c .-rr9

¶44

DISPOSING OF THE WRIT^PETITION WITHOUT COSTS

¶45

G<br>o

S. Pandu Ranga Reddy v. The State of Telangana and 3 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

S. Pandu Ranga Reddy v. The State of Telangana and 3 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Smt. Donthi Reddy Anitha Vs The State of Telangana Rep by its Principal Secretary

Jilkapally Laxman Vs The Chief General Manger(Commercial)

Kancharla Gopala Krishna Rao Vs Government of India

G Ramavatharam and 8 Others Vs State of Telangana and 5 Others

Praja Pata Shala Educational Society Vs The District Registrar Officer and 2 Others

Sri Darshanala Kumar Vs The State of Telangana