Disposed

Mayur Mundra v. State of Telangana

Telangana HC16 Nov 2021WP(PIL)/291/2020

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In a PIL under Article 226, the petitioner sought a mandate for A4 size back-to-back printing in Telangana courts. The Court observed that the Full Court had already decided on this and disposed of the petition directing the High Court to issue the notification within 30 days.

What did the court decide?

Petition disposed of; High Court directed to issue notification mandating A4 size back-to-back printing within 30 days.

Mayur Mundra Vs State of Telangana — Constitutional and Fundamental Rights | Telangana HC (2021)

¶1

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

¶2

TUESDAY, THE SIXTEENTH DAY OF NOVEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY ONE

¶3

PRESENT

¶4

THE HONOURABLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE SATISH CHANDRA SHARMA AND

¶5

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE A. RAJASHEKER REDDY

¶6

WRIT PETITION^(PlL) NO: 291 OF 2020

¶7

Between:

¶8

Mayur Mundra, S/o. Damodar Mundra,^{Aged27 years,Occ: Advocate, Rlo. 21-3-725'} Chelapura, Hyderabad^- 500002

¶9

...'ET'T'ONER

¶10

AND

¶11

State of Telangana, Rep. by its Special^{Chief Secretary, General Administration,} Secretariat, Hyderabad.

¶12

High Court forihe State of Telangana,^{Rep. by its RegistrarAdministration,} Telanoana Hioh Court. Hvderabad.

¶13

Hiqh dourt for-the State df Telangana,^{Rep. by its Registrar Judicial, Telangana} Hi6h court' Hvderabad

¶14

...RES'.NDENTS

¶15

Petition under Article 226 of^{lhe constitutionof lndia prayingthat in the} circumstances stated in the affidavit^{filed therewith,the High court may be pleased} to issue an appropriate^{writ order or directionmore particularly in the nature of} Mandamus directing the Respondents^{to issue directions for the use of 44 size} papers and mandating both sides^print on the^{paper for all judicialpurposesin the} Honorable High Court^{for the Stateof Telangana, Honorable Subordinate Courtsin} the state of Telangana^{including all the Tribunals and quasi-judicialbodies.}

¶16

Counsel for the Petitioner:^{SRI'S. GOUTHAM}

¶17

Counsel for the Respondent^{No.1: GP FOR GENERAL ADMINISTRATION}

¶18

Counsel for the Respondent^{Nos.2& 3: SRI N. PRAVEEN REDDY, SC FOR TSHC}

¶19

Counsel for the^{Respondents: THE ADVOCATE GENERAL}

¶20

The Court made the^{following:ORDER}

¶21

THE HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE SATISH CHANDRA SHARMA AND

¶22

THE HoN'BLE SRI JUSTICE A.RAJASHEKER REDDY

¶23

W.PlPILl.No.29l of 2O2O

¶24

ORDER: Pet the Ho 'bb he ctuel Jusrice satish chandrc sharll..,)

¶25

Sri N. Praveen Reddy, learned Standing Counsel for the High Court, has informed this court that the Full Court has already taken a decision to use only A4 size paper back-to-back and the consequential notification as well as arnendment is going to be issued very soon.

¶26

ln the light of the statement made by the learned Standing Counsel, the present Writ Petition (Public Interest Litigation) stands disposed of with a direction to the High Court to issue necessarv norilication, as expeditiously as possible, preferably u'it,hin thirtl dal"s lrom today.

¶27

Pending miscellaneous applications, il any, shall stand

closed.

//TRUE COPY//

SD/.K.SREERAMA^MURTHY ASSIST,ANT REGISTRAR ( /' (r ),

¶32

SECTION OFFICER

¶33

¶34

1 One CC to Sri S. Goutham,^Advocate IOPUC] 2 iwo CCs to GP for General^{Administrdtion,HighCourt for the State of} Telanoana at Hvderabad. [OUTI 3 Two CICs to the-Advocate^{General,High Courtfor the State of Telangana at} Hyderabad. [OUTI 4 Ohe CC to Sri N.-Praveen^{Reddy, SC FOR TSHC} [OPUC] 5 Two CD Copies 6 One Spare Copy

CHR

\ ;--

HIGH COURT

DATED:1 611112021

ORDER

W.P.(P!L).No.291 of 2020

¶41

-.
,ffi
'3, $ ,,{'i
\'a. .'!.,/
\a,-r::'"-'...;"

¶42

.DtSPOStNG^{oF THE} W.P.(PtL) WITHOUT COSTS

¶43

o >\ aO

Mayur Mundra v. State of Telangana

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Mayur Mundra v. State of Telangana

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

Piramal Pharma Limited Vs The State of Telangana

Telangana State Wakf Board Vs Kiran Konijeti and 5 others

Telangana State Wakf Board Vs Shanthi Vasudevan

Kondareddy Vishnumurthy Vs The State of Telangana and 5 Others

The Director (Personnel, Administration and Welfare) Vs Sri. T.Krishna Murthy

The State of Telangana and 8 Others Vs M/s Shantha Sriram Constructions Pvt. Ltd.