Dismissed

Padige Nageswara Rao v. The State of Telangana

Telangana HC22 Jul 2022WA/467/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Division Bench dismissed the Writ Appeal filed against a Single Judge's order which had summarily dismissed a Writ Petition challenging a Government policy granting fishing rights. The Court held there was no infirmity in the Single Judge's approach and reiterated liberty to the appellants to file a separate writ appeal against the judgment in W.P.No.5991 of 2022.

What the court decided

AI extract

Padige Nageswara Rao Vs The State of… — Public Procurement and Tenders | Telangana HC (2022)

¶1

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

¶2

FRIDAY, THE TWENry SECOND DAY OF JULY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY TWO

¶3

PRESENT

¶4

THE HONOURABLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE UJJAL BHUYAN AND

¶5

THE HONOURABLE MRS JUSTICE SUREPALLI NANDA

¶6

WRIT APPEAL NO:²¹⁶⁷ OF 2022

¶7

Writ Appeal under Clause 15 of the Letters Patent^preferred against^the dated: 08-07-2022 in W.P.No.28522 of 2022. on the^file of^{the High Court.}

¶8

Between:

¶9

'1 . Padige Nageswara Rao, S/o. Somaiah, Age 38 years, Ri./o. H.No.5-86, Marrimitta Village of Guduru Mahabubabad District.

¶10

Maloth Bhavsingh, S/o.Bitcha, Age 33^years,Rl/o. H.No.3-66,^Marrimitta Village of Guduru Mahabubabad District.

¶11

Vankadothu Katar Singh, S/o. Gandhi, Age^{45 yrs Rl/o. H.No.24-110, Guduru} Village, Gundur Mandal, Mahabubabad District.

¶12

Vankadothu Srinivas, S/o. Lakhya, Age 38^yrs R/o.^{H.No.24-116/1} Guduru Village, Gundur Mandal, Mahabubabad District.

¶13

Punem Yakaiah, S/o. Butchaiah, Age 50^{years Rl/o. H.No.23-1 10,} Brahmanapalli Village, Guduru Mandal, Mahabubabad^District.

¶14

Bulli Saraiah, S/o. tr/alliah, Age 35^{years Ri/o. H.No.24-07, Brahmanapalli} Village G uduru ltrlandal, Mahabubabad District

¶15

Podige Mangaiah, S/o. Sammiaha, Age 33^{years R|/o. H.No.2-96'} Ayodhyapuram Village, Guduru Mandal, Mahabubabad^District.

¶16

Bhukya Abhiram, S/o. Narasimha, Age^{28 years Ri/o.H.No.1-10,} Ayodhyapuram Village Guduru Mandal, Mahabubabad^District.

¶17

Mokalla Ravi, S/o. Lingaiah, Age^{32 years, R/o. H.No.1-3, Pogullapalli Village,} Kothaguda Mandal, Mahabubabad District.

¶18

Angothu Rajender, S/o. Devsingh, Age 30^{years, Fl/o. H.No.5-71} , Pogullapalli Village Kothaguda Mandal,^{Mahabubabad Dist.}

¶19

1 1. Datla Prudhvirai, S/o. Ammaiah, Age 30^{years R/o. H.No.3-8'Vellubeli} Village(GP), Kothaguda Mandal, Mahabubabad^District.

¶20

Mokalla Srinivas, S/o. Yallaiah, Age 43^{years Ri/o.H.No.3-91, Vellubeli Village} (GP) Kothaguda Mandal, Mahabubabad Dist.

¶21

..Petitioners/Petitioners

¶22

AND

¶23

The State of Telangana, Rep- by^{its PrincipalSecretary, TribalWelfare} Department, Secretariat Buildings, Hyderabad.

¶24

2- The State of Telangana,^Rep. by^{its PrincipalSecretary, AnimalHusband,} Dairy Development and Fisheries^{(F) Department, Secretariat Buildings,} Hyderabad.

¶25

3 The Commissioner,^{Tribal Welfare,D.S.S-Bhavan,Hyderabad'}

¶26

4 The Commissioner,^{Fisheries, Hyderabad.}

¶27

5 The District Collector,^Mahabubabad.

¶28

6 The Project Officer,^{l.T.D.A., Eturunagaram, Mulugu District'}

¶29

7 The District Fisheries^{Officer, Mahabubabad'}

¶30

B The Guduru Fishermen^{Cooperative Society(Reg'),Repby its President'} Pandavula Mallaiah,^{S/o.Abbaiah,Fi/o. Guduru, Mahabubabad}

¶31

I fi.n"*"n Cooperaiive^{Society, Pogallapalli Rep by its President' Byraboina} n".ui"t, S/o.^{Komaraiah,R/o.Pogailapalli Village, Kothaguda Mandal'} Mahabubabad Dist

¶32

...Respondents/Respondents

¶33

IA NO: 10F 2022

¶34

Petition under^{Section 151 CPC prayingthat in the circumstancesstated} in the affidavit^{filed in supportof the petition,the High Court may be pleasedto} issue lnterim^{Directionsuspending} the operation of^{ClauselX, Para 3 of} G.O.Ms.No.17 Animal^HusbandrY' Dairy Development^{and Fisheries(F)} Department^dl.7.9.2021'

¶35

IA NO:2OF 2022

¶36

Petition under Sect^{ion 151 CPC prayingthat in the circumstancesstated} in the affidavit^{filed in supportof the petition,the High Court may be pleasedto} issuelnterimDirectiondirectingtherespondentstoforthwithimplementMemo No.2589A/andF!A2t2o17A.H.D.D.andF(F)Deptdt.29.5.2019keepinginview ofthejudgmentrenderedbytheHon,bleSupremeCourtoflndiainSamathaVs. State of A.P.^{and ors reported in 1997 (8) SCC1 91 ) and two judgments} rendered by this^{Court reportedin 2003(5) ALT287' and 2007 (5) ALT 418 for} granting fishing rights to the^{groups of STs in the Scheduled Areas-}

¶37

Counsel for the^{Appellants:SRl. P.V' RAMANA}

¶38

Counsel forthe^{Respondents: MS.T- KANYA KUMARI'}

¶39

AGP FOR SOCIAL^{WELFARE AND FISHERIES}

¶40

The Court delivered^{the following: JUDGMENT}

¶41

¶42

THE HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE UJJAL BHIIYAN

¶43

AND

¶44

THE HON'BLD MRS JUSTICE SUREPALLI NANDA

¶45

WRIT APPEAL No.467 of 2O22

¶46

JUDGMEN!: tPe. tt1.e Ho,t bk, the t l1r,'t ,htstr..e i.i)Jt1l tltluljo,tj

¶47

Heard Mr. P.V.Ramana. learned counsel for the appellants and Ms- T.Kanya Kumari, learned Assistant Government Pleader for Social Welfare and Fisheries appearing for responcients

¶48

This intra-court appeal has been filed by the appellants against the ordcr dated 08.07.2022 passed by the learncd Single Judgc dismissing W.P.No.28522 of 2022 filed by the appeliants as u,rit petitioners. The related writ petition u,as liled to declare the policy of Government of Telangana ltl Ci.O.Ms.No.17. dated 07.O9.2021 , of the Animal Llusbandr,r - Dairl Deveiopment & Fisheries (F) Department. granting lishing rights in all water bodies of the State bclos l00 acres evcn in scheduled areas in /t /a tavou r of F-ishermen Coope ratii'e Soc ieties comprising of non-tribes; and not granting lishing rights exclusively to

¶49

(

¶50

Fisherrnen Cooperative Socier-ies con'rprisir-rg oi' Scherl,.iieri Tribes.

¶51

Learned Single Jucige rloted tlrar guidelinc 3(ixi oi G.C.Ms.i!o.17. dateci 07.Og.2O2l, was pLrt ro challenge br:tbr-e tiris Court in W.P.No.599 l c,f 2O2?,. r\ fiii.rgit: Iir:riclr r:f this Court l-raci renderr:d jucigrnent crn 0t> l)6.2022 interpreting the sajd guideline as noi_ putring any ernbargo fcr grarr t of fishing right to non-tribal coopera[ivc socleties even in respect of a schedtrled ;rl-ea_ In sl r.:!.r circumstances, learned Single .Iudge r-ook the vicu, tha.t hc is bounC by the precedent and not follor.r,ing the sanre would be judiciai inrpropnr.r... [,(]arlrcii Sirrglr' ..luCqe observed that proper cou!-sc lor the :rppcllants u,oulcl be to question the order dated 06 .06.2022 passed in W.P.No.599 1 of 2022 b1. filing u'r.it appeal belore lhe Division Bench with leave.

¶52

We do not find anv infirmitv in the approach of the learned Single Judge. Errtt:rtarning tl-rc appcal u.ould amount to examining the r:rliclrt.r of thc jr-rclgment anci order dated 06.06.2022 passcd b.t the learned Single Judge

¶53

¶54

in W.P.No.599l of 2022 without the same being specifically impugned.

¶55

We therefore reiterate the liberty granted to the appellants by the learned Single Judge by observing that it would be open to the appellants to file a writ appeal along with leave application assailing judgment and order dated 06.06.2022 passed in W.P.No.599I of 2O22. If such an appeal is filed it would be open to the appellants to raise all legally permissible grounds in support of the challenge.

¶56

Subject to the above, u,rit appeal is dismissed.

¶57

Miscellaneous applications pending, if any, shall

¶58

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

¶59

SD/.CH.VENKATESWARULU DEPUW REGISTRAR //TRUE COPY// X'-" SECNOft OFFICER

¶60

¶61

To,

¶62

One CC to SRl. P.V. RANIANA Advocate IOPUCI

¶63

fwo CCs to GP for Social Welfare, High Court for the State of Telangana at Hyderabad. [OUT]

¶64

Two CCs to GP for Fisheries, High Court forthe State of Telangana at Hyderabad. {OUTI

¶65

Two CD Copies

¶66

One Spare Copy

CHR'7-

HIGH COURT

DATED:2210712022

JUDGMENT

W.A.No.467 of 2022

TA;.8 t
I [ 3 ],i'l\ ?$?1
i)
<br>'t

¶73

DISMISSING THE WRIT APPEAL WITHOUT COSTS

¶74

n^
l(tro\ro-

Padige Nageswara Rao v. The State of Telangana

Case brief

What is this about?

What the court decided

Padige Nageswara Rao v. The State of Telangana

Case brief

What is this about?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

The Divisional Forest Officer Nirmal, Adilabad District. Vs Sollu Narasaiah

Sri Veera Hanuman Devalayam Cheruvu Vs The State of Telangana

State Bank of India Vs Union of India and 3 others

The Depot Manager Vs a.Sankar

Syed ZainulAbedin Vs Ahsan Ali Khan

Bankatlal Bhati, Vs Mandal Revenue Officer, Shamshabad Mandal