Dismissed

G. Ramulu, Mahaboobnagar Dist. v. the Dist.Collector,Mahaboobnagar, and 4 Otrs.

Telangana HC16 Sept 2022WA/26/2012

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Telangana dismissed a writ appeal and writ petition as infructuous without costs following an adjournment when no parties appeared. The court did not rule on the merits of the underlying dispute regarding a Government Order for establishing a Ryoth Bazar.

What did the court decide?

Writ appeal and writ petition dismissed as infructuous without costs.

G. Ramulu, Mahaboobnagar Dist. Vs the… — Writ and Judicial Review | Telangana HC (2022)

¶1

[^32e5 ]

¶2

HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD

¶3

FRIDAY, THE SIXTEENTH DAY OF SEPTEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY TWO

¶4

PRESENT

¶5

THE HON'BLE THE CHIEF^{JUSTICEUJJALBHUYAN} AND THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE C. V.^{BHASKAR REDDY}

¶6

WRIT APPEAL NO: 26 OF 2012 AND wRtT PETIION NO.3842 0F²⁰¹⁰

¶7

wA NO.26 0F 2012:

¶8

writ Appeal under clause^{15 of the Letters Patent preferred against the order dated} 16.12.2011 in W.P. No.^{18433of 2009 on the file of the High Court.}

¶9

Between:

¶10

G. Ramulu, S/o. IMuneppa^{PoojariAbhayanjaneyaSwamyTemple'} !o^D.No 1079. Malapeta Near O[d Bus Stand,^{leeza Mandal, Mah-abubnag3r} P-t-sitt"J,-. ...APPELLANT/PETITIONER

¶11

AND

¶12

The District Collector,^{lvlahabubnagar Districtat [t4ahabubnagar}

¶13

Primary Agricultural Co-operative^{Society, Rep' by its Manager Gadwal,} Mahabubnagar District.

¶14

The Sub-Divlsional Co-Operative^{Officer/, Liquidator Gadwal, Mahabubnagar} District.

¶15

A. Jaqan Goud, S/o. Kistaiah Goud^{Business Rl/o.H.No.3-70,Banal Village,} Balm5or Mandal, I/ahabubnagar^District.

¶16

M. Mohan Reddy, S/o.^{tr/. KrishnaReddyFr/o. o-1,fssi"tilAft+or?8ES53lir??l*}

¶17

Counsel for the Appellant:^{SRIPASAM SRINIVASAREDDY(NOT PRESENT)}

¶18

Counsel for Respondent Nos.^{1 to 3: GPFOR COOPERATION(NOT PRESENT)}

¶19

Counsel for Respondent Nos.^{4 & 5: SRI K. RATHANGA PANI REDDY}

(NOT PRESENT)

WP NO: 3842OF 2010

Between

T. Veeraiah Gupta, S/o.late Narsimhaiah^{AgricultureR:/oThumukunta Village'} leeja IVlandal, ltrlahabubnagar^District ...PETITIONERS

¶24

AND

¶25

1 The Government of A.P., Rep. by its Principal Secretary, Agrl. & Cooperation Department, Secretariat, Hvderabad.

¶26

2 The Commissioner for Cooferation and Registrar, of Cooperative Societies, Gruhakalpa Buildings, IM.J. Ir,4arket Road. Hyderabad.

¶27

3 The District Collector, Mahabubnagar,, Ir.4ahabubnagar Drstrict. 4.q The District Cooperative Officer, [,4ahabubnagar,, lt,4ahabubnagar District. The Sub Divisional Cooperative Officer / Liquidator,, Cooperative Arlarketing Society Ltd., Gadwal, Mahabubnagar District.

¶28

o. Smt. Ratna Radhika, W/o. Raghava Reddy Assistant Registrar / Liquidator, Cooperative Marketing Society, Gadwal, Mahabubnagar District.

¶29

1. A.Jagan Goud, Business Rio.Banala Village, Balmoor fi,4andal, Mahabubnagar District.

¶30

B M.Mohan Reddy, Business R/o.D. No.43/260, Sankalbagh, Kurnool Post & District.

¶31

Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of lndia ,r"riffT:i?"=l;: 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 to declare G.O.Rt.No.11299, dt. 22.1O.2008 issued by Agriculture and Cooperation (Coop.l), Department, Government of A.P. and consequential auction conducted by the 5th respondent is being rllegal, arbitrary, opposed to public interest and consequently direct the respondents No.'1 to 5 to set up a Ryoth Bazar, Motton, Chicken and Fish market on the subject matter land in the larger public interest in Sy.No.3, admeasuring Ac.0.34 1/2 Gts. of leeza Village and Mandal, Mahabubnagar District.

¶32

Counsel for the Petitioner: SRI PASAM SRINIVASA REDDY(NOT PRESENT)

¶33

Counsel for Respondent Nos. 1 to 5: GP FOR COOPERATION(NOT PRESENT)

¶34

Counsel for Respondent No. 8: SRI K. RATHANGA PANI REDDY (NOT PRESENT)

¶35

The Court made the following: ORDER

¶36

THE HON'BLE 'IHD CHIEF JUSTICE UJJAL BHIIYAN

¶37

AND

¶38

THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE C.V.BHASKAR REDDY

¶39

WRII' APPEAL No.26 of 2OL2 and WRIT PETITION No.3842 of 2OLO

¶40

COMMON JUDGMENT: tP(rtir^{!tt,L'b!.ti1.c\1rcfJtstrceuiaLBhltyan)}

¶41

None has appcared for the^parties on cail

¶42

We have perr.rsed the order of the learned^Single Judge dated 16.12.'.'.O11^{passedin W.P.No.18433of 20O9.}

¶43

On due consirleration, we are of the view that^writ

¶44

appea-l and writ^petition have^{become infructuous.}

¶45

Writ appeai and '"vrit^petition are accordingly

¶46

dismissed as infrucl uous.

¶47

Miscellaneous applications pending, if any,^shall

¶48

stand closed. However, there shall be^{no order as to costs.}

¶49

¶50

sd/- T.SRtNtvAs //TRUE COPY// DEPUTY_REGItr1AR _fir-t".\r\r I sEcrloN oFFlcER

¶51

To,

¶52

gn" gg to Sri pasam Srinivasa Rcrrrrrr arr,,^^^+ 2. 2 pj;s,..% r*t#m:fi # 3lJilfr iqffi^"""[fr 4.E One Two Spare CD CopiesCopy MBC

or re a nsa na

HIGH COURT

DATED: 1610912022

rHE s14
\ Yt)
C)
,J .-
3 0 JAll 2[23 1l
"' /l
::,f
* .l
-+

¶57

COMMON ORDER

¶58

WRIT APPEAL NO: 26 OF 2012 AND WRIT PETITION N0.3842 OF 201O

¶59

¶60

DISMISSING THE WRIT APPEAL & WRIT PETITION

WITHOUT COSTS

q5o

CoPes

mp11\l ,-l

G. Ramulu, Mahaboobnagar Dist. v. the Dist.Collector,Mahaboobnagar, and 4 Otrs.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

G. Ramulu, Mahaboobnagar Dist. v. the Dist.Collector,Mahaboobnagar, and 4 Otrs.

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

Sri Amit Kumar Agarwal, R.R. District. Vs S. Pandu Ranga Reddy, Hyderabad and 3 Others.

Sri Amit Kumar Agarwal, Kothapet, Rr Dist. Vs N. Pulla Reddy, Rr Dist. and 4 Others

M/s. Vemulapalli Brothers Vs Assistant Commissioner (Central Taxes)

Akula Veeraiah,Nizamabad Dist Vs Commissioner of C.S,Hyd,and 4 Otrs

Mgr., M/S. Bpcl and Ano. Vs J.Ramulu, Hyd.

M/s. Sbs Filling Station Vs The State of Telangana