Disposed

A.BalReddy v. The State of Telangana and 9 others

Telangana HC1 Apr 2022WA/201/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

A writ appeal challenging the refusal to decide a petition involving newspaper reporters. The bench observed that fresh notice to represented parties was unnecessary and directed the Principal Secretary to hear the matter and decide it within 45 days.

What did the court decide?

Directed the Principal Secretary to hear the matter and decide it within 45 days from the date of the order.

A.BalReddy Vs The State of Telangana and 9 others — Service and Employment | Telangana HC (2022)

¶1

HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA^{AT HYDERABAD}

¶2

FRIDAY ,THE FIRST DAY OF APRIL TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY TWO

¶3

PRESENT

¶4

HONOURABLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE SATISH CHANDRA SHARMA AND THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE ABHINAND KUMAR SHAVILI

¶5

WRIT APPEAL NO: 20'l OF 2022

¶6

Writ Appeal under clause 15 of the Letters Patent^{Appealpreferred against} the order dated 29-11-2021^passed in W P No 23131 of 2021^{onthe file of the High} Cou11.

¶7

Between:

¶8

A.Bal Reddv, S/o.late Narayan Reddy Aged about 64^{years Occ.Retd.} GHIVZPH SH No.1 -79lA lbrahimpally village Chevella lt/andal, Ranga^Reddy District, TS

¶9

..APPELLANT/RESPONDENT NO. 5

¶10

AND

¶11

The State of Telangana, Rep.by its Principal^{Secretary, RevenueDepartment,} Secretariat. B.R,K.R.Bhavan Hyderabad,^T.S.

¶12

The District Collector, Ranga Reddy^{District,Vikarabad}

¶13

The Tahsildar, Shankerpafly Mandal^{VikarabadDistrict}

¶14

The Zilla Praja Parishad, Ranga Reddy District^{Rep.by its Chief Executive} Officer Khair1habad, Hyderabad.

¶15

RESPON DENTS/RESPON DENTS

¶16

5, G.Jaichander, S/o.Ananthaiah^{Aged aboul 47 years Occ. Reporter Nay} Telangana Newspaper R/o.shankerpally^{Village and l\r'landal, Ranga Reddy} District

¶17

Saleem Pasha, S/o.tr/ohd.Yousuf Aged^{about 39 years Occ. Reporter lt4ana} Telangana Newspaper R/o.Shankerpally^{Village and Mandal Ranga Reddy} District.

¶18

G.Chandrashekar, S/o,Nagappa^{Aged about 52 years Occ. Reporter Andhra} Prabha Newspaper R/o.Shankerpally^{Village and [tr]andal Ranga Reddy} District.

¶19

D.Surender, S/o.Ramchander Aged^{about 62 years Occ. Reporter Namasthe} Telangana Newspaper R/o.shankerpally^{Village and [/andal Ranga Reddy} District

¶20

Narasimha Swamy, S/o.Sailu^{Aged about 62 years Occ. Reporter Vaartha} Newspaper R/o.shankerpally Village and^{lr,4andal Ranga Reddy District}

¶21

R.Sathish, S/o.Sailu, aged about^{47 yearcOcc. ReporterAndhraBhoomi} Newspaper Fl/o.Shankerpally^{Village and l\4andalRanga Reddy District}

¶22

,..RESPONDENTS/PETITIONERS

¶23

lA NO: 1 oF 2022

¶24

Petition under Section 151 CPC^{praying that in the circumstancesstated} in the affidavit filed in support^{of the petition,the High Court may be pleasedto} set-aside the orders^{passed by the Learned Single Judge in W.P. No.2313112021} ' Dated 29-1 1-2021 by confirming the^{order daled 22-6-2016passedby the} Respondent No. 1.

¶25

Counsel for the Appellant:SRl.^{M.N. HYDER ALI}

¶26

Counsel for the Respondent Nos.^{1 to 3: GP FOR REVENUE}

¶27

Counsel for the Respondent No.4:SRl.^{C. KALYANRAO, SC FOR} ZPPlMPP/GPP

¶28

Counsel for the Respondent^{Nos. 5 to 10: SRl. K. GOVIND}

¶29

The Court made the following:

¶30

THE HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE^{SATISH CHANDRA S}IARMA} AND

¶31

THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE AB^{HINAND KUMARSHAVILI}

¶32

WRIT APPEAL No.2O1 of 2022

¶33

JUDGMENT: lPer ttp^{Ho,l'ble the Chiel'JusticeSatish Chondra Sharma)}

¶34

Learned counsel for the appellant/^{respondent No'5 is} farr enough in stating before this^{Court that the respondent} No"1 be directed to decide the matter^{within a reasonable} time.

¶35

Learned counsel appearing for the^{respondentsNo.5} to lO/writ petitioners has stated that^{the order be passed} by the respondent No.1 after issuing^{proper notice to the} respondents No.5 to 10/writ^petitioners.

¶36

This Court fails to understand that^{once the} respondents No.5 to 10/writ^{petitionersare represented by} a learned counsel, u,hy a^{fresh notice is required.}

¶37

Resultantly, the respondents^{No.5 to10/writ} petitioners as well as appellant/ respondent^{No.5 a-re} directed to appear before the^{Principal Secretary, Revenue} Department, on 18.O4.2022 at^{10.30 AM and the}

¶38

respondent No.1 is directed to hear thern and decide the

¶39

matter, as directed by the learned Single Judge, positively

¶40

rvithin a period of 45 days from today.

¶41

With the a-foresaid, the writ appeai stands disposed

¶42

of.

¶43

The miscellaneous applications pending, if anr', shall

¶44

stand closed. There shall be no order as to costs.

¶45

SD/. M. RAMANA KRISHNA DEPUTY.REGISTRAR

//TRUE COPY'

c+,

SECTION OFFICER

To,

1, The Principal Secretary, Revenue Department, State of Telangana Secretariat. B. R.K. R.Bhavan Hyderabad, T.S.

¶51

G.Jaichander, S/o.Ananthaiah Aged about 47 years Occ. Reporter Nay Telangana Newspaper R/o.Shankerpally Village and lt4andal, Ranga Reddy District

¶52

Saleem Pasha, S/o.lVohd.Yousuf Aged about 39 years Occ. Reporler I,4ana Telangana Newspaper R/o.Shankerpally Village and f\rlandal Ranga Reddy District.

¶53

G.Chandrashekar, S/o.Nagappa Aged about 52 years Occ, Reporter Andhra Prabha Newspaper Rl/o. S hankerpally Village and [ti]andal Ranga Reddy District.

¶54

D.Surender, S/o.Ramchander Aged about 62 years Occ. Reporter Namasthe Telangana Newspaper R/o.Shankerpally Village and l,4andal Ranga Reddy District

¶55

Narasimha Swamy, S/o.Sailu Aged about 62 years Occ. Reporter Vaartha Newspaper R/o.Shankerpally Village and lVlandal Ranga Reddy District

¶56

R.Sathish, S/o.Sailu, aged about 47 years Occ. Repoder Andhra Bhoomi Newspaper R/o.Shankerpally Village and lViandal Ranga Reddy District

¶57

A.Bal Reddy, S/o.late Narayan Reddy Aged about 64 years Occ. Retd. GHIVIZPHS H.No.1-79lA lbrahimpally village Chevella l,4andal, Ranga Reddy District, TS

¶58

L The District Collector, Ranga Reddy District, Vikarabad

¶59

1 0. The Tahsildar, Shankerpafly tVandal Vikarabad District

¶60

'1 1.The Chief Executive Officer, Zilla Praja Parishad, Ranga Reddy District, Khairthabad. Hyderabad.

¶61

12.One CC to Sri. M.N. Hyder Ali, Advocate IOPUC]

¶62

One CC to Sri. K. Govind, Advocate [OPUC]

¶63

One CC to Sri.C. Kalvan Rao. SC for ZPPIMPP/GPP IOPUCI

¶64

R"uun,"'^{High Courtfor the State of TelanganaIOUTI}

¶65

1. Two^{CCs to GP for} '16. Two CD^CoPtes Writ^{Posting Section'High Court of Judicature at}

¶66

17 The^{Section Officer'} ,^{Writ (Division Bench) Section'High Court of Judicature at}

¶67

\t 18 ?iltti?i3.^on'*' HYderabad

¶68

PNI .-'-y

PNI

URGENT

HIGH COURT

DAf ED:0110412022

.tlii- i,,. .(
( o\L C
i
oo ,[ 6 Ai:,i 2!2c
i
:

¶74

JUDGMENT

¶75

WA.No.201 ot 2022

¶76

Disposing of the WA Without costs. x^q

A.BalReddy v. The State of Telangana and 9 others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

A.BalReddy v. The State of Telangana and 9 others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

M/S.M.R.Constructions and Others Vs the State of Telangana., Municipal Admn.and Another

Telangana Communist Party, Warangal Dist. Vs Prl. Secy., Intermediate Education and 4 Ors.

Dr.B.Jyothi Salome Priyadarshini, Vs Union of India represented by its Under Secretary to

Katam Praveen Kumar, Hyderabad and Another Vs Prl Secy, Municipal Admn and Urban Devt Dept, Hyd and 4 Others

Mandal Binoy Vs Prl.Secretary ( Mud) and 13 Others

Smt. Prema Rajeswari Vs High Court of judicature at Hyderabad