Dismissed

G.Chandraiah v. The Registrar

Telangana HC28 Oct 2022WP/11837/2002

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Telangana disposed of WP No. 11837 of 2002. The Court observed that the petitioner, having retired before the impugned Lokayukta order was passed and the delay raising a separate cause of action, was not inclined to continue with the petition, which was accordingly closed.

What did the court decide?

Writ petition is closed; miscellaneous applications also closed; no order as to costs.

G.Chandraiah Vs The Registrar — Public Procurement and Tenders | Telangana HC (2022)

¶1

[^32s5 ]

¶2

HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction)

¶3

FRIDAY ,THE TWENTY EIGHTH DAY OF OCTOBER TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY TWO

¶4

PRESENT

¶5

THE HONOURABLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE UJJAL BHUYAN AND

¶6

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE C.V. BHASKAR REDDY

¶7

WRIT PETITION NO: 11837 OF 2002

¶8

Between:

¶9

G.Chandraiah, S/o. G.Rosaiah, aged 52^years, R/o. Nizamabad

¶10

...PETITIONER

¶11

AND

¶12

The Registrar, lnstitution of Lokayuktha and Upa Lokayuktha Bashirbagh, Hyderabad.

¶13

The Principal Secretary to Government, Department of Housing at Secretariat, Hyderabad.

¶14

A.P.Housing Board, Rep. Vice Chairman & Housing Commissioner Gruhakalpa, M.J.Road, Hyderabad,rep by its Vice Chairman & Housing Commissioner.

¶15

...RESPONDENTS

¶16

Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of lndia praying that an the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed therewith, the High Court may be pleased to issue a Writ of Mandamus or any other appropriate Writ or Writs order or direction, declaring the order dated 0611112000 in Complaint No. 127Bl199BlB1 on the file of the 1st Respondent, as illegal, arbitrary, without jurisdiction and violative of principles of natural justice; Award costs and pass such other or further orders as are deemed fit and proper in the circumstances of the case.

¶17

WPMP. NO: 14611 OF 2002

¶18

Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased to

¶19

suspend the opera ion of the order dated 0611112000^pas:;eC in Complaint^No. 127811998181 on tl r: file of the 1st Respondent, pending disposal of W. P.No. of 2002 and pass suc- other or further orders as are deemecl flt and^proper in the circumstances of th :r case.

¶20

WPMP. NO: 2861 C Ir 2003

¶21

Petition undt ' Section 151 CPC praying that in the c rcumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the^petition, the High Court may be^pleased to direct the respondt^rlts to reinstate the^petitioner into servi:er forthwith and^pass such order or furtht,. orders as are deemed fit and proper in the circumstances of the case.

¶22

WPMP. NO: 3065^{( :2012}

¶23

Petition un^jer Section 151 CPC praying that in the c rcumstances stated in the affidavit filer in support of the petition, the High Cc.rrl may be pleased to permit the petition( r'to filed additional material papers in WP No 11837 of 2002.

¶24

WPMP. NO:44958 t)F 2012

¶25

Between:

¶26

A.P.Housing Bo rrd, Rep. Vice Chairman & Housing Comnrissioner Gruhakalpa, M.J.Road, Hyde'abad-1

...PETITIONER

(R-3 in WP)

AND

'1. G.Chandrai; h, S/o. Todhsish, Retired Executive Enginet:r, R/o.Nizamabad.

¶31

.....PETITIONER IN WP

¶32

The Registr r, lnstitution of Lokayuktha and Upa Lokavuktha Bashirbagh, Hyderabad.

¶33

The Princip: I Secretary to Government, Department oi Housing at Secretariat, lyderabad.

¶34

,..RESPONDENTS

¶35

Pe'ition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affir lavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be

¶36

pleased to hear the Writ Petition on 'Out of Turn Basis' in the interest of justice and fair play.

¶37

Counsel for the Petitioner : SRl. MARUTI RAO SRUNGARAPU

¶38

Counsel for the Respondent No.1: P V VIDYASAGAR(SC FOR LOKAYUKTA) Counsel for the Respondent No.2 : Ms BORRA LAKSHMI KANAKAVALLI, AGP FOR HOUSING.

¶39

Counsel for the Respondent No.3 : Mr. A.K.JAYA PRAKASHRAO, Advocate. The Court made the following: ORDER

¶40

THE EION'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE UJJAI. B I{ITYAN

¶41

AND

¶42

TH] ) HON'BLE Szu JUSTICE C.V.BHASKAR II.EDDY

¶43

WRIT PETITION No.11837 of 2OO2

¶44

ORDER: P i tt",e Hotl'ble the ChieI Justice UiaI tshugan)

¶45

Hea'd Mr. Maruthi Rao, learned counsel for the petitioner Ms. Borra Lakshmi Kanakavalli, learned Assistant Government Pleader for Housing, Municipal Administr rltion and Urban Development Department appearinJ, for respondent No.2; and Mr. A li...laya Prakash Rao, leanred counsel appearing for respondenl No.3

¶46

By filing this writ petition under Artic^e 226 of thre Constitut ion of India petitioner has assailecl legaiity and vaJidity ;f the order dated O6. 1 1 .2000 pi,lssed by the Lokayuk ;1, Andhra Pradesh.

¶47

By the order impugned i.e.,06.1i.2()00, Lokayukta I acting o-L the basis of a news report published in the )

¶48

¶49

Eenadu Telugu Daily Newspaper on 25.09.1998 calried out investigation regarding allegations against the petitioner and others.

¶50

Be it stated that at the relevant point of time, petitioner was serving as Executirre Engineer, Housing Board in the Nizamabad Division, though placed under suspenslon.

¶51

On the basis of the enquiry report ald the deiiberations made by the I-okayrrkta in the proceedings dated 06.1 1.2000, State Government in the Housing Department was directed to initiate necessary action against the public servants at serial Nos. I to 4, No.4 being the writ petitioner, both civil and criminai. Chief Secretaqz and Director General were directed to submit compliance report within two months.

¶52

\ \

¶53

In the proceedings dated 22.10.2OO2, the writ petition was admitted for hearing and there was stay of prosecution of the petitioner.

At tt r: time of filing the writ petition, petitioner r,r,as 52 years oi age. Now he would be 72 years of age and had crossed th:: age of superannuation long back. As a matter of fact, ne had retired on attaining :he age of superannr ration on 31.O7 .2007 .

¶58

¶59

On -. query by the Court, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that petitioner has not bt:en paid ary retiremen . benefits.

¶60

We are of the view that the above grir:valce of the petitioner raises a separate cause of action and cannot be gcne intc in the present proceeding. On zr query by the Court, le rrned counsel for the petitioner sutrmits that till date^{qtar ()} Government has not taken atrv del>artmental action ag ainst the petitioner, though crim inal proceedings have bee : initiated.

¶61

Thr t being the position, we are rLot inclined to continue lurther with the writ petition.

¶62

Wr'- petition is accordingly closed.

¶63

Misccllaleous applications pending, if any, shall

¶64

stand closed. Horvever, there shali be no order ers to costs-

//TRUE COPY//

SD/- G. SIREESHA ASSISTANT REGISfRAR

¶69

sEcroN#FrcER I

¶70

To, 1. The Registrar, lnstitution of Lokayuktha and Upa Lokayuktha Bashirbagh, Hyderabad.

¶71

One CC to SRl. MARUTI RAO SRUNGARAPU, Advocate. [OPUC]

¶72

One CC to SRl. P V VIDYASAGAR(SC FOR LOKAYUKTA) Advocate [OPUC]

¶73

Two CCs to GP FOR HOUSING, High Court for the State of Telangana at Hyderabad. [OUT]

¶74

One CC to SRI.A K JAYAPRAKASH RAO, Advocate tOPUCl

¶75

Two CD Copies

¶76

One Spare Copy

SB GJP

I I

I { I

HIGH COUR'I'

DATED:2811]t12022

ORDER

S Yt t <br>-e
(
,\i
2
0 i ti0il ?!22
i::
.q:,/
'/
. . - <-. 'lt ,'t
''i
'' - -:.?

¶85

WP.No.11817 of 2002

¶86

CLOSING TI{E WRIT PETITTON WITHOIJT COSTS

¶87

\N9',,

G.Chandraiah v. The Registrar

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

G.Chandraiah v. The Registrar

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

Sri Nagarjuna Degree College and another Vs The State of Telangana and 3 others

Kolisetty Shiva Kumar Vs The Election Commission of India and 3 Others

Medarametla Lasya Vs Union of India

M/S. Keerthi Industries Ltd., Hyderabad. Vs the Government of a.P., Iandc, Secretariat, Hyd, and 2 Others

M/s. Progressive Constructions Company, Vs The Government of Andhra Pradesh

M/S. Rama Spinners Pvt. Limited Vs the Income Tax Officer