Allowed

M.Vijaya Kumar v. Gundlapally Sreenu

Telangana HC21 Feb 2022WA/74/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This judgment allows a writ appeal wherein the High Court held that the person allegedly operating an unauthorized fish stall, who was the real affected party, should have been impleaded as a respondent in the original writ petition before the Single Judge. Consequently, the lower court's order directing immediate action was set aside.

What did the court decide?

The order of the Single Judge directing authorities to take action was set aside. The appellant was permitted to be impleaded, and the writ petition was listed for a fresh hearing.

M.Vijaya Kumar Vs Gundlapally Sreenu — Civil Procedure and Limitation | Telangana HC (2022)

¶1

HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD

¶2

(Special Original Jurisdiction)

¶3

TUESDAY, THE TWENTY SECOND DAY OF FEBRUARY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY TWO

¶4

PRESENT

¶5

THE HONOURABLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE^{SATISHCHANORA SHARMA} AND

¶6

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE ABHINAND^{KUMAR SHAVILI}

¶7

WRIT PETITION^(PU BLIC INTEREST^{LITIGATION)NO: 363 OF 2018}

¶8

Between:

¶9

J.P,Rao, S/o. Ramulu, aged about^{63 years,} Occ:^{Advocate, lllrdFloor, United Arcade} Commercial Complex, Attapur, Hyderabad-48.

¶10

...PETITION ER/PIP

¶11

AND

¶12

1 The Govt. of Telangana, rep.by^its Ex-Offcro^{Secretaryto Govt. Consumer} Affairs, Food and Cjvil Supplie3^Dept ,^{TelanganaSeiretariat,Hyderabad.}

¶13

2 The Registrar General, High Court of Judicature^{at Hyderabad, for the States of} Telangana and A.P. Hyderabad.

¶14

(As per Court Order dated 2-11-2018 Respondent No.2 deleted^{from arrayof} parties)

¶15

3 The President, Telangana State Consumer^{Disputes Redressal Commission,} Khairatabad, Hyderabad,

¶16

4 The State Public lnformation Officer,^{Telangana State Consumer Disputes} Redressal Commission, Khairatabad,^Hyderabad.

¶17

5 The Appeliate Authority and Designated Offrcer,^{Telangana State Consumer} Disputes Redressal Commission,^{Khairatabad, Hyderabad}

¶18

...RESPONDENTS

¶19

Petition Under Atlicle 226 of the Constitution of^{lndia prayingthat in the} circumstances statedⁱⁿ the^{affidavit filed therewith, the HighCourt may be pleased} to lssue an order or Writ more^{particularly, Writ of Mandamusdeclaringthe} availment of vacations by the Telangana State^{Consumer Disputes Redressal} Commission and its District Fora as^{illegalandin contraventionto the provisions of} the Act and Rules of Consumer^{Protection Act, 1986 and consequently directthe} 1st Respondent to see that the State Consumer^{Disputes Redressal Commission} and its fora work on^par with^{Govt. Offices but not High Court.}

¶20

Counsel for the Petitioner: SRI.J.P.RAO^{(PARTY lN PERSON)}

¶21

Counsel for the Respondents^{: GP FORCIVIL SUPPLIES}

¶22

The Court made the following ORDER

¶23

THE HOI{'BLE CHIEF JUSTICE SATISH DRA STIARMA AND

¶24

THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE ABHINAND KUMAR SHAVILI

¶25

WRIT PETITION IPIL|.No.363 of 2O18

¶26

ORDER: Per the Hon'ble the ChieJ Justice Satish Chandia Sh'lrma)

¶27

The present public interest litigation has been frled by the petitioner, who is a practicing advocate, being aggrieved by the vacation avaiied by the Telangana State Consumer Disputes Redressa-l Commission.

¶28

The contention of the petitioner is that the Consumer Protection Act has been enacted for the betterment of the consumers in the country and thereafter keeping in view the aim and object and the statutory provisions as contained under the said Act, the National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, the State Consumer Disputes Redressa-l Commissions and the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commissions have been established. His contention is that the employees and the Presiding Officers of the Telangana State Consumer Dispute Redressai Commission and the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commissions under its control are availing vacation/holidays at par with the High Court/Civi1 Courts of the State.

{

In the considered opinion of this Court, the employees and the Presiding Officers of the Telangana State Consumer Dispute Redressa.l Commission and the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commissions under its control cannot be compelled to work for al1 tJ.e seven days in a week and they are also employees like other employees. This Court does not find any reason to grant the relief as prayed by the petilioner, especially when the employees and the Presiding Offrcers of the Telangana State Consumer Dispute Redressal Commission and the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commissions under its control are being granted holidays at par with the employees of the other Courts in the State. No case for interference is made out in the matter.

¶35

The public interest litigation is accordingiy dismissed.

¶36

The miscellaneous appiications pending, if any, shall stand closed. There shall be no order as to costs.

¶37

SD/.B.SATYAVATH I ASSISTANT REGISTRAR //TRUE COPY//

¶38

SECTION OFFICER

¶39

To SECTION OFFICER 1. The Ex-Offucro Secretarv to-Govt. Con_sumer Affarrs, Food and Civil Supplies ^^{9."pt. Govr or Tetangana, TetanganaS"o"tr.iri} ivoJijlo ' IH^g3s;3;: lj roeta n6ana State do" ;,;;; ij;;p;i".'n!l?J3'" r comm i ssion,

¶40

The State^public lr^formarrnn. Offrcer,. Tetangana State ConsLrmer Djsputes ,^{Redressal Commissron. Khairatabad.} HvOeiaoaJ'"'-^"-"""

¶41

4 rne Appellale Authorilv an.l Desrgnated Officer.. Telangana State Consumer.

¶42

_^{Disputes Redressar Commission,"KhairrtrOuO,} iuOl"rrBij" . 5 one cc to sRl J.p RAo L p nao sio-nl,irir""bZjZf,iJi;"p.by its occ: vvrrrPrc^i r

¶43

Adovacte # lllrd Ftoor Unrreci-Aracde Commeric5l Compiex,-Attapur Hyderabad_

¶44

^ 48(PARTY rN pERSoN) topucl " Ji}o"-"r",,t"1" StFoR^{clvlL suP'PLIES,Hishcourt ror the state or reransana} at 7. Two CD Coo'ies 8. One spare coov SA

HIGH COURT

DATED:2210212022

E SlAr€
{
s5 MAq 2c22
ot) ..::
.,k

Ii? p ^.- (:

¶50

ORDER

¶51

WP(PIL).No.363^{of 2018}

¶52

DISMISSING^THEW.P(PIL)

¶53

WITHOUT^COSTS.

¶54

,5
@@P'
Ae-
6q*

¶55

HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD

¶56

MONDAY, THE TWENTY FIRST DAY OF FEBRUARY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY TWO

¶57

PRESENT

¶58

THE HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE SATISH CHANDRA SHARMA

¶59

AND

¶60

THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE ABHINAND KUMAR SHAVILI

¶61

WRIT APPEAL NO: 74 oF 2022

¶62

writ Appeal under clause 15 of the Letters Patent preferred against the order dated 02-02-2022 passed in W.P No. 5342 ol 2022 on the file of the High Court.

¶63

Between:

¶64

M.V,rjqya Kumar, s/o M.Prasad, aged about 35 years, Occ. Meat Vendor at 10-2-2891127 Shanti Nagar, Masab Tank, Hyderabad, r/o H.No. 14-1-376, New Aghapura' Hyderabad

¶65

...A''ELLANT/THTRD^pARTy

¶66

AND

¶67

Gundlapally Sreenu, s/o Venkat Narayana aged about 45 years, occ. Fish Stall 1 0-2-28el'1 27, shanti Nasar, Masab rrrl:.HI3BL1PS9^:r,*R,r pE,,oNER

¶68

The State of Telangana, rep. by its Principal Secretary, Municipal Administration and Urban Development Department, Secretariat, BRK Bhavan, Hyderabad.

¶69

Greater Hyderabad Municipal Corporation, Rep. by its Commissioner, Tank Bund, Hyderabad.

¶70

The Commissioner of Fisheries and Managing Director, Telangana State Fishermen Co-op. Societies Federation Lifrit;d, office it Matshya Bhavan Shanthi Nagar, 4th Lane, Masab Tank, Hyderabad.

¶71

The Telangana State Fishermen Co-op. Societies, Re. by its General fvlanager, office at l,4atshya Bhavan Shanthi Nagar, 4th Lane, Masab Tank, Hyderabad.

¶72

The Directorate of Enforcement Vigilance and Disaster Management, Tank Bund Road, Hyderabad

¶73

The Deputy Commissioner, GHlt/C, Tank Bund Road, Hyderabad.

¶74

B. The Station House Officer, Humayunnagar Police Station, Hyderabad Police Commissionerate Hyderabad, Telangana State.

¶75

RESP.NDENTS/RESP.NDENTS

¶76

lA No: 2 oF 2022

¶77

Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that^jn the clrcumstances staled in

¶78

the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased to

¶79

suspend the operation of the order passed in W.P.No.5342 of 2022 dated. 02-02-

¶80

2022, pending disposal of the main Writ Appeal in the interest of justice

¶81

Counsel for the Appellant: M/s. PILLIX LAW FIRM

¶82

Counsel for Respondent No. 1: SRI D, L. PANDU

¶83

Counsel for Respondent Nos.2 & 6: GP FOR MUNICIPAL ADMINISTRATION & URBAN DEVELOPMENT

¶84

Counsel for Respondeht Nos.3 & 7: SRI N. RISHI KUMAR

¶85

Counsel for Respondent Nos. 4 & 5: GP FOR FISHERIES

¶86

Counsel for Respondent No. 8: GP FOR HOME

¶87

The Court made the following: JUDGMENT

¶88

THE HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE SATISH CHANDRA SIIARMA AND

¶89

H N'BLE SRI JUSTICE ABHINAND KUMAR

¶90

WRIT APPEAL No.74 of 2022

¶91

JUDGMENT: (Per the Hon'ble the Chief Justice Satish Chandra Shorma)

¶92

The present u,rit appeal is arising out of an order dated 02.02.2022 passed by the learned Single Judge in W.P.No.5342 ctl 2022 (Dr.Gundlapally Sreenu^{v. The} State of Telangana and others).

¶93

The facts of the case reveal that the writ^petitior-l was prelerred by' onc Dr.Gundlapally Sreenu stating that he has been allotted a lish sta.ll and there^{is some} unauthorised fish sta1l next to his stail and^without impleading the person who is a-llegedly having^the was unauthorised fish sta-1l, the said writ^petition preferred. The learned Single Judge has directed^the authorities to take immediate action and^{also to} ensure that no such i1lega1, unauthorised constructions are raised in the locality

¶94

¶95

Learned counsel for the appellant has argued before this Court that the appellant is the person u,ho is, in fact, getting aflected in the matter and in all fairness, he shouid have been impleaded as the respondent in the writ petition.

¶96

In the considered opinion ol this Court, as the appellant is the affected person and he will be thrown out from the place, which he is occupying, in all fairness, he should have been impleaded as the respondent in the writ petition.

¶97

Resultantly, the order passed by the learned Single Judge is set aside. The appellant is permitted to file an application for impleadment in the writ petition and the learned Single Judge is requested to hear the appellant also whiie passing a linal order afresh in the matter.

¶98

Office is directed to list the u,rit petition belore the learned Singlc Judge on O2.O3.2O22 and as the order passed by the learned Single Judge is set aside,

¶99

the parties shall appear before the learned Single

¶100

Judge on the said date

¶101

The writ appeal is accordingly allowed.

¶102

The miscellaneous applications pending, if any,

¶103

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

¶104

SD/-K.SRINIVASA RAO JOINT REGISTRAR

//TRUE COPY//

Lln

To,

SECTION OFFICER

I!:^{qllqip.rtSecretary,,tvlunicipatAdministration and Urban Devetopment} uepanment, State ot Telangana. Secretariat, BRK Bhavan, Hyderabid.

¶110

The Commissioner, Greatei Hyderabad Municipai Coiporailoir, Tant< BunO, Hyderabad.

¶111

a The Commissioner of Fisheries and l\ilanaging Director, Telangana State Iplqq:l^{Co-op Socieries FedejationLi;it;d, office at Vtats6yi-anavan} Shanthi Nagar.4th Lane. Masab Tank. Hyderabad.

¶112

The General [,4anager, Telangana State Fishermen Co-op. Sociefies, office at Matshya Bhavan Shanthi Nagar, 4th Lane, I,4asab Tank,'l-lydeiabrO.'^{--- -'} The Directorate of Enforcement Vigilance and Disaster [,,laiigem;ni, fank Bund Road, Hyderabad.

¶113

6.7. ]fe The Station^{pep.utyCommissioner.} House officer Humayunnagar^{GHIVC. Tank Bund Road,} porice staiioi,^Hyderabad. nyoerioao eofice L:ommrssionerate Hyderabad, Telangana State.

¶114

B. The Section Officer,'Writ Non Servic6 Sectron, High Court for the State of Telangana

¶115

1. The Section Officer, Writ Posting Section, High Court for the State of Telangana

¶116

10 . One CC to M/s. Pillix Law Firm Advocate tOpUCt

¶117

11 .One CC to Sri D L Pandu Advocate tOpUCl

¶118

12 .Two CCs to GP For Municipal Ad-mi'nistration & Urban Development, High Court for the State of Telanlana. [OUT]

¶119

13 .Two CCs to GP For Fisheries, Hi6h Cdurt for the State of Telanoana. IOUTI 14 I*o 9Qq^to- Ql^{F_qrHg1ne,High eourtfor the State of Tetangint.} tOdn^' 15 .One CC to Sri N. Rishi Kumar, Advocate (OPUC)

¶120

16 .Two CD Copies 17 . One Spare Copy MBc LS

URGENT

HIGH COURT

DATED: 2110212022

1 gE slAii
(
o)q
(-) 05 t4AF,2022
':<br>* ]s:
DtE i']:^. -r".

¶126

JUDGMENT

¶127

WA.No.74 of 2022

¶128

ALLOWING THE WRIT^APPEAL

¶129

WITHOUT COSTS

¶130

M.Vijaya Kumar v. Gundlapally Sreenu

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

M.Vijaya Kumar v. Gundlapally Sreenu

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

Mangali Bhaskar Vs The State of Telangana

The Singareni Collieries Co. Ltd. and 2 Ors, Vs G. Sudhakar Rao

Vaddadi Murali, Vs Union of India rep by its the Secretary

D. Ashok Kumar Vs The New And Renewable Energy Development Corporation Limited

The Ap STate Housing Corporation Limited, rep.by its Vs Y.Dayanand

J.Ravinder Reddy, Vs The State of Telangana