Dismissed

Greater Warangal Municipal Corporation v. The Union of India and 2 Others

Telangana HC20 Apr 2021WP/8591/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

A writ petition filed by the Greater Warangal Municipal Corporation against the Union of India and EPFO regarding the determination of an amount of Rs.38,38,4921 is dismissed as withdrawn without costs by leaving the petitioner liberty to challenge consequential orders.

What did the court decide?

None granted. Writ petition dismissed as withdrawn without costs. Liberty to challenge consequential orders reserved.

Greater Warangal Municipal Corporatio… — Constitutional and Fundamental Rights | Telangana HC (2021)

¶1

HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD

¶2

(Special Original Jurisdiction)

¶3

TUESDAY ,THE TWENTIETH DAY OF APRIL TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY ONE

¶4

PRESENT

¶5

THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE ABHINAND KUMAR SHAVILI

¶6

WRIT PETITION NO: 8591 OF 2021

¶7

Between:

¶8

Greater Warangal l\rlunicipal Corporation, Warangal, Rep.by Ch.Nageshwar, S/o,Anjaiah Aged 56 years, Occ. Addt. Commissionel, R/o.Waringal.

¶9

...PET|T|ONER

¶10

AND

¶11

The Union of lndia, Rep.by its Secretary, N/inistry of Finance, Department of Economic Affairs, New Delhi.

¶12

Employees Provident Fund Organization, Rep.by its Regional provident Fund Commissioner, Sub-Regional Office,24-7-20711-5, Near REC (NlT) petrot pump, 100 feet Road Kazipet, Warangal - 506 001.

¶13

The Enforcement Officer, O/o.Employees Provldent Fund Organization, Sub-Regional OlIice,24-7-207115, Near REC (NlT) Petrol Pr-rmp,^.,l00 feet Road, Kazipet, Warangal - 506 001 .

¶14

.,.RESPONDENTS

¶15

Petition under Article 226 of lhe Constitution of lndia praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed therewith, the High Court may be pleased to issue an appropriate Writ, Order or direction more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus declaring the action of the respondents vide TS/NZML/RO/66100/ PDCELL/GL/2020-2111780 dated 251212021, served on 171312021 determining the amount of Rs.38,83,4921 as illegal, arbitrary, contrary to the settled principles of law and consequently set aside the same in the interest of justice.

¶16

lA NO: 1 OF 2021

¶17

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 stay alt further proceedings pursuant to the impugned proceedings issued by the respondents No.2 and 3 vide TS/NZML/R0/66100/PDCELLlcLl2020-2111780 dated 25t212021 , served on 171312021 determining the amount of Rs.38,83,492l- pending final decision on the appeal.

¶18

Counsel for the Petitioner: M/s. PINGALI LAKSHMI Counsel forthe Respondent No.1: SRI NAMAVARAPU RAJESHWAR RAO,

¶19

ASST. SOLICITOR GENERAL

¶20

Counsel for the Respondent Nos.2 & 3: SRI T. BALAJI, SC FOR EPFO

¶21

The Court made the following: OROER

¶22

HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE^{ABHINAND KUMAR SHAVILI}

¶23

w.P .No.85 91 0F 021

¶24

ORDER:

¶25

Learned counsel^{aPpearing for the petitionerseeks} permission to withdraw^{the writ petitionwith liberryto the} petitioner to challenge^{the consequentialprohibitory orders} issued by the^resPondents.

¶26

Reserving^{such liberty,the Writ Petitionis dismissedas}

¶27

withdrawn. No^costs'

¶28

Miscellaneous petitions,^{ifany, pendingshallstand}

closed.

#*d

SD/- K.ONESIM

ASSISTANT REGISTRAR

//TRUE COPY//

6o,

SECTION OFFICER

One CC to M/s.^{Pingali Lakshmi' Advocate} tgPUC] .. 2. one cc to sri Nama-varapu^{RajeshwarRao, Asst. Solicitor General, Advocate} TOPUCI 3. bne-ct to Sri T.^{Balaji, SC for EPFo,Advocate[oPUc]} 4. Two CD Copies '?r

¶38

HIGH COURT

¶39

DATED:201o412021

¶40

-.t:-<br>//nv $.
ti,: s"
ORDER
llx s
\o
WP.No.8591 ol 2021
<br>:--r/

¶41

DISMISSING THE WP AS WITHDRAWN WITHOUT COSTS

¶42

fl,fc
fl

Greater Warangal Municipal Corporation v. The Union of India and 2 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Greater Warangal Municipal Corporation v. The Union of India and 2 Others

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

K.Vishnuvardhan Reddy, Vs The District Collector (Tw)

Kinnera Laxman Rao Vs The State of Telangana

Ranajit Mahapatra Vs The Chief Manager, And 2 Others

V. Vijayalakshmi Vs The State of Telangana and Another

Allam Vinod Kumar Vs M/s Hindustan Petroleum Corporation Limited

Major Shiva Kiran Vs Indian Oil Corporation Ltd.