Dismissed

Burra Lingaiah Yadav v. The State of Telangana and 3 Others

Telangana HC10 Feb 2022WA/354/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This High Court dismissed the writ appeal filed by Burra Linoaiah Yadav against an order of the Adjudicating Officer under the Food Safety and Standards Act. The Court noted that the petitioner had abandoned the compensation claim and upheld the Single Judge's decision to dismiss the petition, leaving the matter closed without costs.

What did the court decide?

The writ appeal is dismissed without costs.

Burra Lingaiah Yadav Vs The State of Telangana… — Writ and Judicial Review | Telangana HC (2022)

¶1

HIGH COURT FOR^{THE STATEOFTELANGANA} AT HYDERABAO

¶2

THURSDAY, THE TENTH^{DAY OF FEBRUARY} TWO THOUSAND^{ANDTWENTY TWO}

¶3

PRESENT

¶4

THE HONOURABLE^{THECHIEFJUSTICE SATISH CHANDRA SHARMA} AND

¶5

THE HONOURABLE^{SRIJUSTICE ABHINAND KUMAR SHAVILI}

¶6

WRIT APPEAL^{NO: 354 OF2021}

¶7

writ Appeal under^{clause 15 of the Letters Patent Preferred Againstthe orderDated.} 22rc6h;C21,^{passed in WP.No.13278 of 2021 on the file of theHighCourt'}

¶8

Between:

¶9

Burra Linoaiah Yadav, S/o^{Mallaiah, Aged about 32 years,Occ'BusinessRl/o H No 3-} gg, NlarriiguOa Village and Mandal, Nalgonda District'

¶10

..,PETITIONER

¶11

AND

¶12

The State of^{Telangana, Rep. by its Principal Secretary'Ministryof Health and} Family Welfare Deiartment,^{SecretariatHyderabad'}

¶13

The Commissioner,^{Food Safety,Telangana State, Hyderabad}

¶14

Food Safety^{Designated Officer, Nalgonda District'}

¶15

4.TheAdjudicatingofficer/AdditionalCollector/AdditionalDistrictMagistrate' Nalgonda District

¶16

...RESPONDENTS

¶17

IA NO: 1OF²⁰²¹

¶18

Petition Under^{Section 151 CPC prayingthat in thecircumstances statedin} the affidavit^{filed in supportof the peiition,1neHign Court may be pleased to} susoend the Order^{Rc.No.zdated O5to6l2o21 pasied by the RespondentNo'4} i;il;;.;^{p"narty ot Rs.2 Lakhs on the Petitioner,in the lnterestof iustice'}

¶19

Counsel for^{the Appellant: SRI.M.A K'MUKHEED}

¶20

counsel for the^{Respondents:GPFORMEDICAL HEALTH AND FAMILY WELFARE}

¶21

The Court^{madethe followingJUDGMENT}

¶22

THE HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE SATISH CHANDRA SITARMA AND

¶23

THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE ABHINAND KUMAR SHAVILI

¶24

WRIT^APPEAL No.354 of 2021

¶25

JUDGMENT: per the Ha 'bte the Chief Justce sotish Ct(in.lru Shan,la)

¶26

The present writ appeal is arising out of order dated 22.06.202I passed in W.P.No.13278 of 2021 by the learned Single Judge.

¶27

The facts of the case reveal that the writ petitioner came up before this Court against the order passed by the Adjudicating Officer/Additional District Collector/AdditionaJ District Magistrate, Nalgonda district, in exercise of powers conferred under the Food Safety and Standards Act, 2006 (for short, "the Act"), and the action taken under Section 26(2)(iv)(v) of the Act. A prayer was made for grant of compensation and for setting aside the order impugned. The learned Single Judge has dismissed the writ petition keeping in view the fact that a remedy lies before the designated Principal District and Sessions Judge, as he has been designated as Food Safety Appellate Tribunal vide G.O.Rt.No.493, dated 26.06.20 15.

¶28

In the considered opinion of this Court, the learned Single Judge is certainly justified in disposing of the writ petition with a liberty to avail the alternative remedy. So far as the issue of compensation is concerned, on 10.0g.2021, the learned counsel for the appellant/writ petitioner has

¶29

¶30

¶31

confined the scope of the present appeal only to the extent of the order passed by the Adjudicating Officer. as the appellant/writ petitioner has abandoned the claim for compensation, he is certainly free to file an appeal in accordance with law.

¶32

Accordingly, the writ appeal is dismissed.

¶33

closed. Miscellaneous petitions, if any, shall stand

¶34

There shall be no order as to costs.

¶35

"''JLyU+)tE8't?$[ \y.,

¶36

//TRUE^COPY//

¶37

SECTION^OFFICER w ELFARE^{H sh c'u} :?r, f,: ^^{,?*ffi 'Il:ll L:iiY} ,o }}lrgp

¶38

One^sparecoPY SA SWv

¶39

HIGH COURT

¶40

oATEO..10l02l2022

¶41

/,'>
t' :j
23 tEB 2022
t,B
\ -a
E.::;

JUOGMENT

WA.No.354 of 2021

' i,E
Av
It <br>\c )

DISMISSING THE W.A

WITHOUT COSTS.

Burra Lingaiah Yadav v. The State of Telangana and 3 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Burra Lingaiah Yadav v. The State of Telangana and 3 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

P Satish Kumar, Hyderabad Vs Prl Secy, Cons.Affairs, Food and Civil Supplies, Hyd and Anr.

Smt. Vanitha Bai Vs The State of Telangana

A.Durga Bhavani Vs The Union of India

J. Lenora Lavanya Vs M/s. Kotak Mahindra bank Ltd.

Smt Vishni Bai Harwani, Vs Vorla Seetha Ram Reddy and 111 others

P.R.Mali, Vs The Inspector General of Police