Disposed

Mir Alam Mandi Vegetable Commission Agents Association and another v. The State of Telangana and 2 others

Telangana HC8 Jun 2021WP/8785/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Writ petition challenging failure to process license renewal applications despite fee payment. Court disposed of petition by directing authorities to consider pending applications.

What did the court decide?

Respondents directed to consider renewal applications within four weeks from receipt of copy, ensuring fee compliance.

What the court decided

Mir Alam Mandi Vegetable Commission… — Contract and Commercial Disputes | Telangana HC (2021)

¶1

HIGH COURT^{FORTHE STATEOF TELANGANA} AT HYDERABAD

¶2

(SPecial Original Jurisdiction)

¶3

TUESDAY, THE^{EIGHTHDAY OF JUNE} TWO THOUSAND^{AND TWENTYONE}

¶4

PRESENT

¶5

THE HON'BLE^{SRIJUSTICET.AMARNATH GOUD}

¶6

WRIT P^ETITIONNO: 785 0F 2 21

¶7

Between:

¶8

1 Mir Alam^{MandiVegetable Commission Ageits Associationandanother'} H.No.22-6-46'1165,^{tt/ir-Alam"Mriii,"nv-0"'Ju'd] Rep oy its Secretary' Mohamed} Jaleel Ahamed, i/HilU';il;med^{and Sons, Vegetable Commlssion Agent' Mir-AlamMandl'} Hyderabad,^{Rep. by its Proprietor'} ...PET|T|ONERS

¶9

...PET|T|ONERS

¶10

AND

¶11

The state^{of Telangana,Agricultule€nd co-operation(MKTG ll) Department} i;;i;;i Hvdera"uad^{Rdp bv its Principle Secretarv} 2. The Agricurtrr"^{r,,l4rziioiiriti"i,nvoJr.louo,Rep. by its Special Grade} Secretary. g. i[!'Xfliirrture tvlarket committee,^{Mir-Alam Mandi' Hvderabad'Repbv its} Secretary. ...RESPONDENTS

¶12

...RESPONDENTS

¶13

PetitionunderArticle226ollheConstitutionoflndiaprayingthatinthe circumstances^{stated in tn""rtiJuuiiiir"dtherewith, the High court may be pleased to} issue a Writ,^{order o|. di["tion ,ore particularlyone in the nature of Writ of} Mandamusdeclaringtnuu"tion_ottherespondentNos.2and3innotadjustinganof^{'litunt"fees of the membersof the 1 g} amount of^{Rs.5,000/- t";;;;;;;"1} petitioner-Association^{for tn"} i".r.^{ztzl to znZ+' which was paid during the period of} renewal of license^{tor tne yeai'201g - 2021, pursuant to orders of the 1st respondent} in G.o.Rt.No.369,^{dated zldloji it nighiviri"g'r'arbitrary and in violation of Articles} 14 and 19^{(1) (g) of tne Constitution of"lndia aid cons"q'entlydirect the 2nd and 3rd} respondentstoadjusttneamountofRs'5'000/.towardsrenewaloflicensefeesofthe members of^{the 1st petitionei-nsiociationfor the year2021io 2024 by not insistingto} pr"lr tfr" original^{licenseat the timeof renewalof license'}

¶14

lA NO: 1 o F²⁰²¹

¶15

PetitionUnderSectionl5lCPCprayingthatinthecircumstancesstatedinthe ,itioruitiiiui']n".;;p;h^{;ii;.-p"tifion'tn6Hish Co-urt may be pleased to directthe} 2nd and 3rd^{respondent,to i"["* ot inu ti."i." of the petitioneE ulq]!t.members} for the^{period 2021 to ZoZa iino't insisting for pavment of Rs 5'000/- towards} license fees^{by directingnJ o in"irtfor production of original license at the time of} |."nuuf^{pending disposil of the above writ petition}

¶16

Counsel for^{the Petitioner:SRI V' V' N' NARAYANARAO} ;;;;;;i ior^{ttre Respondent No'1: GP FoRAGRICULTURE} counsel for^{the Respond"il l'i;;'i a s' sMr G' NEERAJA REDDY'sc FoR AMc}

¶17

The Court made^{the following:ORDER}

¶18

THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE T. AMARNATH GOUD

¶19

WRIT PETITION No.8785 of 2021

¶20

Q8D]EB:

¶21

It is the case of the petitioners that the petitioners as well as the rnembers of the l't petitioner-Association have filed applications seeking renewal of licences on 22.03.2021 by paying Rs.5,000/- each towards the renewal fee, as per the Government's decision reducing the fee from Rs.10,000/- to Rs.5,000/-, despite, their applications are being kept pending. Though the applicants have paid the requisite fee. the respondents have not considered their applications for renewal of licenses by adiusting the said amount of Rs.5.000/- towards license l'ee.

¶22

lleard both sides

¶23

As the applications for renewal of licenses are still pending" without expressing any opinion on merits of the matter, this writ petition is disposed oi'. directing the respondents to consider the applications lor renerval of licenses. provided the applicants are not in arrears and^the license lee is paid.in terms of the latest Government orders. This exercise shall be completed within a period of Four weeks from the date ol receipt ofa copy of this order. No order as to costs.

¶24

Pending miscellaneous applications, ifany, shall stand closed.

¶25

so/^. T,KRISHNA^KUMAR ASSISTANT^REGIST

¶26

,TRUE^COPY// SECTION^OFFICE R

¶27

\ To, 1

¶28

1 The lvikicj. Princiole Secretary,state^{i I} i 6;p-a-r'tment'secretariat'^{of Telangana' Agriculture and Co-operationHvderabad} . ^ - - 2 The Special^{C raOe Secret"ai',lq6ii"'itit"Market Committee' Hvdera bad'} 3 The Sbcretary,^{Rgriculture'NiiiriEi'cdi"rniii"J'Mir-Atam Mandi' Hvderabad'} 4 o;:,tC't;'3ii'v.'v.^{r'r. uarJvini Rao, AdvocatetqPUCl} E iffi &ti"^{cp ioi ng,i.uii'G, i'ghto''rfor the State of relangana at} Hvderabad. [OUT] 6 d;"bCi; d,iiol^{Neerala Reddv, SC for AMC' Advocate[oPUC]} 7. Two CD^CoPies SIT] ,aJ

HIGH COURT

DATED:08/06/2021

ORDER

WP.No.8785 of²⁰²¹

1 e s TA lF
v^
)
114 JUl,! 2021 a
/
.i.
F Pt,

¶34

DISPOSING OF THE WP WITHOUT COSTS

¶35

C>=.--
q5
c=>

Mir Alam Mandi Vegetable Commission Agents Association and another v. The State of Telangana and 2 others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

Mir Alam Mandi Vegetable Commission Agents Association and another v. The State of Telangana and 2 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 . 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

B.Venkata Narsa Raju Vs State of Telangana and 3 Others

Dantharaveni Kanukaiah Vs The State of Telangana

Macha Prashanth Vs The State of Telangana