Partly allowed

M/S Avanii Meadows Private Limited. v. The State Of Telangana

Telangana HC3 Jun 2021WP/842/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Court granted permission to withdraw the writ petition regarding revocation of a draft layout by HMDA and dismissed the petition as withdrawn without costs.

What did the court decide?

Permission to withdraw the writ petition (W.P. No. 842 of 2021) and I.A. No. 3 of 2021 granted; petition dismissed as withdrawn without costs; miscellaneous petitions closed.

M/S Avanii Meadows Private Limited. Vs The… — Public Procurement and Tenders | Telangana HC (2021)

¶1

HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction)

¶2

THURSDAY, THE THIRD DAY OF JUNE TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY ONE

¶3

PRESENT

¶4

THE HON'BLE SRIJUSTICE A. ABHISHEK REDDY

¶5

l.A.No.3 of 2021 IN/AND

¶6

Between:

¶7

WRIT PETITION NO; 842 OF 2021

¶8

lV/s Avanii Meadows private. Limite!., A private Limited Company, Havino its Resistered office At srt-3so, s.R.N;sa;,'&;;;;ilil, R;p"by ii;'D;;cior G rurasiraj.

¶9

AND

¶10

...PETITIONER

¶11

'l . The state of reranoana t"p uy its principar Secretary, Municipar Administration And Urban Deve.tofiment oejpar[ment, sejr"iri[j,-uio'"t;;. "-^""""'e's('.,

¶12

1. ^ I he Hyderabad Metropolitan Development Authoiity, District bommercial Uomptex, Administrative 'L' Block, Tamaka, Hyderabad, Rep. by its Metropolitan Commissioner.

¶13

Q ]le_Sercptary,^{HMDA, Tarnaka,Hyderabad.}

¶14

M/s Bdl Officers Colony Welfare Adsociation, Nandigam Viilage, patancheru Mandal, Sangareddy District, Rep. by its President.'

¶15

...RESPONDENTS

¶16

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 more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus by declaring the impugned Proceedings of the 3rd respondent vide No. 007298/SkP/LT/U6/HMDA/2018, d|.31-12-2020 revoking the draft^{layout issued in} favour of the^petitioner vide Permit No.000137/LO/Plg/HMDA/2019,^{dt. 10-07-2018} in Fite No.007298/5KP/LT/U6/HMDA/2018^{Uls 22 of the HMDAAct, 2008 in respect} of land in survey number^{163 and 162, situatedat NandigamVillage, Patancheruvu} Mandal, sanga Reddy^{Districtto extentof 44227.12 sq.meters., as beingillegal,} arbitrary, violative^{of articles 14, 21 and 300 A of the constitutionof lndia, besides} violative of^principlds of^{natural justiceand contrary to.the provisions of the} Hyderabad Metropolitan^{Development AuthorityAct 2008 and consequentlyset-} aside ihe same.

¶17

IANO:1OF 2021

¶18

PetitionunderSection'l5lCPCprayingthatinthecircumstancesstatedin the affidavit^{filed in support of the petition,the High Court may be pleasedto} suspend impugned^{Proceedings of the 3rdrespondentvideNo'} 0072981SkP/LT/U6/HMDA/20^{18, dt: 31-12.2020 revokingthe draft layout issuedin} favourofthepetitionervidePermitNo000l3T/Lo/Plg/HMDA/20,19,dt:10.07-2018 inFileNo.007298/SKP/LT/U6/HMDA/2018Uls22oftheHMDAAct,2008inrespect of land in^{survey number 163 and 162, situatedat Nandigam Viilage, Patancheruvu} Mandal, Sanga^{Reddy District to extent of 44227,12 Sq.meters.,pending disposal of} the Writ^Petition.

¶19

il2ll

¶20

lA No.^{3 oF 2021} - " ^-r. ^'arr in o thet in the^{circumstances statedin} Petition^{under Section 151 CPC praygthat} the affidavit^{fiteO in support of the petition' the High Court may be pleased to permit} the^{petitioner to withdraw the writ petition} IA^No:20F2021

¶21

N a nd^{isamViI rase'P ata ncheruMandar'}

¶22

ffi ,tr*":sf^{fi," y B[i{s A..'"::8Lxi:,.}

¶23

...Petitioner/ResPondent^No'4

¶24

AND

¶25

¶26

Hlllflljij%"frS35tPS[?l?i'Tli1rAJ"''ff]?'!5[[?1R3['Bl''*5'tli3"'l?

¶27

"'ResPondenUWrit^Petitioner

¶28

2 rhe^{stateor reranea na,,Re p} o' j':::''"". " ii;E"t'.S8y.Al"tffi^i"Jit+,YJl{'

¶29

'il3.iilx?r?*xr:tm"r"{B:[:+sfl^{:r:t;:ii:'-'r[gt"i'ltl3i?l'"""'.} 4. The Commissioner.Secretary' Hyderabad^{Metropolitan DevelopmetnAuthority' Tarnaka'} Hyderabad.

¶30

...Res^{pondents/ResPondents}

¶31

PetitionunderSectionl5lcPCprayingthatinthecircumstancesstatedin the affidavit^{filed in support of the petition, the High court may be pleased to vacate} the interim^{order passed in l.A No'1 ol 2021 in W P No B42 of 2021 daled} 12101t2021^{pending disposalof the Writ Petition'}

¶32

CounSEI fOT thE^{PCtitiONCT: SRI. PARSAANANTH NAGESWAR RAO}

¶33

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

¶34

Counsel forthe Respondent^{Nos'2& 3: SRI Y. RAMA RAO, SC FOR HMDA}

¶35

Counsel forthe Respondent^{No.4: SRI VEDULASRINIVAS}

¶36

The Court made the following:^ORDER

¶37

THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE A.ABHISHEK REDDY

¶38

I.A.No .3of 2021 IN/eno WRIT PETITION No.842 of 2027

¶39

coMMON ORDER:

¶40

I.A.No.3 of 2O2I has been filed seeking permission of this Court to withdraw Lhe writ petition with liberty to file a fresh writ petition.

¶41

Permission, as sough for, is accorded.

¶42

Accordingly, I.A.No.3 of 2O2l is ordered. Consequently, W.P.No.842 of 2021 r's disrnissed as withdrawn granting iibcrty ttt rhe petitioner to file a fresh writ petition.

¶43

The miscelianeous petitions pending in the main writ

¶44

petition, if aly, shall stand closed. There shall be no order as to costs.

¶45

//TRUE COPY'

¶46

SD/-R.KARTHIKEYAN ASSISTANT REGISTRAR )tv/ SECTION OFFICER

¶47

To,

¶48

One CC to Sri Parsa Ananth Nageswar Rao,^Advocate IOPUC]

¶49

Two CCs to GP for lvlunicipal Adhinistration^{and Urban Development,High} Court for the State of Telangana at Hyderabad, [OUT]

¶50

One CC to Sri Y. Rama Rao,^{SC FOR HMDA} [OPUC]

¶51

One CC to Sri Vedula-Srinivas,^Advocate [OPUC]

¶52

Two CD Copies

CHR -- (/

HIGH^COURT

DATED:0310612021

COMMON^ORDER

l.A.No.3 of²⁰²¹

IN/AND

E sTAre-
1
Q.
o 0
04 iut{ 2$u1 .L
* o:.seL{c A'{

¶60

W.P.No.842 of²⁰²¹

¶61

I.A.NO.3 OF 2O2l IS ORDERED^AND DISMISSING THE WRIT PETITION AS WITHDRAWN WITHOUT COSTS

¶62

+<
L-.2

M/S Avanii Meadows Private Limited. v. The State Of Telangana

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

M/S Avanii Meadows Private Limited. v. The 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

B.Shankar Naik Vs The State of Telangana

Adviti Constructions Vs The Southern Power Distribution Company of Telangana State Ltd.

Madire Prabhu Lingam Vs Telangana State Southern Power Distribution Corporation Limited and 4 Others

Vishnu Constructios Vs The Southern Power Distribution Company of Telangana State Ltd. and 3 Others

Mohammad Anwar and 16 others Vs The State of Telangana and another

M/s. Sethus Building Army Vs The State of Telangana and 3 Others