Dismissed

Chenimilla Jagdeeswar v. B. Raghavendar

Telangana HC22 Mar 2022WA/266/2018

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This writ appeal challenges an order where the Single Judge granted liberty to re-submit a representation regarding a Hindu religious institution matter. The High Court dismissed the appeal, noting there was no reason to interfere and directing Respondent No. 2 to hear appellants before passing any order.

What did the court decide?

Order to hear appellants before passing any order on the representation; no order as to costs.

Chenimilla Jagdeeswar Vs B. Raghavendar — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Telangana HC (2022)

¶1

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

¶2

¶3

TUESDAY ,THE TWENTY^{SECOND DAY OF MARCH} TWO THOUSAND^{AND TWENTY TWO}

¶4

PRESENT

¶5

HONOURABLE^{THE CHIEFJUSTICE SATISH CHANDRA SHARMA} AND THE HONOURABLE^{SRI JUSTICE ABHINAND KUMAR SHAVILI}

¶6

W TAP PEAL^{NO:266oF 2018}

¶7

Writ Appeal under^{clause 15 of the Letters Patent againstthe order passed dated} ro-l r-ioiTii\rv.i.^{t'lo. oasas ol 2017'on the file of the High court'}

¶8

Between^:

¶9

1	Chenimilla^{Jagadeeshwar,} S/o. Chenbasaiah^{Swamy,aged 74 years,} R/o.Tandur^{Town, VikarabaclDistrict} (OIdRanga Reddy^{District)TelanganaState}
1	Qhenimilla^{Mallikharjuna,} S/o. Chenbasaiah^{Swamy,agcrd63 years,} R/o. Tandur^{Town,VikarabaclDistrict} (OldRanga^{ReddyDistrict)TelanganaState}
3	Chenimilla^VijaYKumar' S/o. Chenbasaiah^{Swamy,agecl59 years} R/o. Tandur^{Town,VikarabaclDistrict} (OldRanga Reddy^{Distlict)TelanganaState}
4	Chenimilla^Baswaraj, S/o. Chenbasaiah^{Swamyaged 55years,} R/o. Tandur^{Town, Vikarabad 'District} (OIdRanga Reddy^{District)TelanganaState}
5	Chenimilla^{Ravi,S/o.Chenbasoiah Swamy} ased52 veal's,^{Occ. Business,} pio. TaniurTo*n'VikarabadDistrict (OIdRanga Reddy^{District)TelanganaState}
6	Chenimilla^Neelakantham S/o.Chenbasaiah^{Swamy,agecl48years,} R/o.Tanclur^{Town, VikarabadDistrict} (OldRanga Reddy^{District)TelanganaState}
7	Chenimilla^Niranjan, S/o.Shivakuinar,^{aged 35Yearl;,} R/o. Tundut^{To*t, VikarabadDistrict} iOia^{nung,n.adyDistrict)TelanganaState}

¶10

	7
8	ChenimillaAnand Kumar, Sio. Chenbasaiah, aged56 years, R./o.TandurTown,VikarabadDistrict (OldRanga ReddyDistrict) TelanganaState
9	Chenimilla Nagaraj, S/o.Dhananjaya,aged39years, R-/o.Tandur Town, VikarabadDistrict (OldRangaReddyDistrict) TelanganaState AND	..APPELLANTS/ Respondents5to14
l.	B.Raghavendar, S/o.B. BharatBhooshan, Aged35 years,R"/o.H.No.6-8-2717 Gandhinagar,TandurTown VikarabadDistrict (OldRanga ReddyDistrict)
2.	Varala SrinivasReddy S/o..Ilanyan Reddy,aged35years R/o.I{.No, 8-l-26/41,Greencity Colony, Tandur Town, VikarabadDist:r'ict (OldRanga ReddyDistrict)	.Respondents/ WritPetitioners
-)	TheStateofTelangana Rep.by itsPrincipalSecretary, Home Department,Secretariat Telangana,Hyderabad
4	TheStation HouseOfficer, Tandur PoliceStation,Tandur^'I'own VikarabadDistlict(OldRanga Reddy District),TelanganaState
5	TheComrnissionerolEndowurent, StateofTelangana,Boggulakunta, Hyderabad-500001
6	TheAsst.Commissioner ofEndowment, RangaReddy (NewVikarabad)District Boggulakuntr,Hyderabad-50000i

¶11

¶12

¶13

7 Sri Neelakantha Swamy Samacll.ri a Hindu Religious Institution

¶14

registered under the^provisions of

¶15

Telangana Endowment Act 30 of i987 rep. by its Executive Officer, Tandur Town Vikarabad District (Old R.R. District) Telangana State

¶16

. . .Respondents/ Respondents 1 to 5

¶17

IAN 2 F20

¶18

Petition under^{Section 151 CPC prayingthat in the circumstancesstated in} the affidavit^{firedin support} "t^{i# p"irt,o", the_High. court may be preased to suspend} the operation^{of the orderl,ili"io i)or7 i;w P No' 38589 of 2017'pending} disposal^{of the WritAPPeal}

¶19

Counsel^{for the Appellants:SRl'M SIVANANDA KV$.AR} ;;;;;;i^{iot ir''" ni,ipondentNos'1 & 2: SRI' NIIl].l|{DUGAR} ;;;;;;i^{iot in" n""bondentNos'3 & 4: GP FoR HoME} ;;;;;;i^{for the Respondent Nos'5 & 6: GP FoRENDoWMENTS} ;;;;;;i^{iot it'," n""bondentNo' 7: NoNE APPEARED}

¶20

The Court^{made the following:}

t _l

( I

THE HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE SATISH CHANDRA SHARMA AND

¶25

THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE ABHINAND KUMAR STIAVILI

¶26

WRIT APPEAL No.266 of 2018

¶27

JUDGMENT:^per the Hon'ble the Chief Justice Satish Chandra Sharma)

¶28

The present writ appeal is arising out of an order dated 16"LL.2OL7 passed by the learned Single Judge in W.P.No.38589 of 2017.

¶29

The facts of the case reveal that the writ petition was preferred by the respondents No.l and 2lwrit petitioners stating that they have submitted a representation dated 06.1,0"2077 and the same is not being decided by the Station House Officer, Tandur Police Station. The learned Singie Judge has disposed of the writ petition by simply giving a liberty to the respondents No.1 and 2/writ petitioners to re-submit the representation dated 06.lO.2Ol7 and the respondent No.2 in the writ petition has been directed to decide the same in accordance with law.

¶30

¶31

This Court does not find any reason to interfere with the order passed by the learned Single Judge, which is of the year 2017.

¶32

The writ appeal is accordingly dismissed. However, it is made clear that before passing any order, the respondent No.2 in the writ petition shall

¶33

also hear the present appeilants in the matter.

¶34

The miscellaneous applications pending, if^any,

¶35

sha]l stand closed.^{There shallbe no order as to costs'}

¶36

¶37

SD!K.SRINIVASA^RAO JOINT REGISTRAR

To,

//TRUE COPY//

SEGTTON FICER

1, One^{CC to Sri. M Sivananda Kumar' Advocate [OPUC]}

¶42

i. o;; cc^{to sti. Nikunj Dugar, Advocate[oPUc]} 3. i;; cc.^{t. cp tor HomE,uigncourt fi the state of relanaana lourl} 4. Two CCs to^{GP fo'f nao*'""nis' t-tigir Cou't ror the State oiTelangana [oUT]}

¶43

Two^{CD CoPies}

PM SW

HIGH COURT

DATED:2210312022

1 t{t- S le,. .
vA.
,l
L) 1 I Jljill 2[22
t')
.L
t +
,

¶49

JUDGMENTT
WA.No.266 of 2018

¶50

¶51

l
Without costs.

¶52

Chenimilla Jagdeeswar v. B. Raghavendar

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Chenimilla Jagdeeswar v. B. Raghavendar

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

G.Krishna Mohan, S/o G.Raghavaiah, Vs Union of India, Represented by its Under Secretary to

Dr. Byrom Sujatha w/o Ronald Srikar, d/o Byrom Somulu, Vs Union of India, Represented by its Under Secretary to

Dr. J. Madhavi Latha, Vs The Union of India, Represented by its Under Secretary to

T.Vijay Kumar, Vs Southern Power Distribution Company of T.S. Ltd.

Telangana State Industrial Infrastructure Corp.Ltd. Vs Smt. Susheela Bai

Telangana State Industrial Infrastucture Vs Y.Chandrasekhara Chowdary