Disposed

Pinjari Shaik Shavali v. The State of Telangana

Telangana HC21 Oct 2022WP/35763/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Petitioner filed a writ petition under Article 226 and Section 151 CPC directing respondents to consider his representations regarding illegal construction on a road. The High Court directed official respondents to take action within six weeks and issued notice to the unofficial respondent.

What did the court decide?

Directed official respondents to consider petitioner's representation and take action within six weeks; issued notice to unofficial respondent.

Pinjari Shaik Shavali Vs The State of Telangana — Writ and Judicial Review | Telangana HC (2022)

¶1

¶2

[³²³⁰ I

¶3

HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE^{OF TELANGANAAT HYDERABAD} (Special Original Jurisdiction)

¶4

FRIDAY ,THE TWENry FIRST^DAY OF^OCTOBER TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY TWO

¶5

PRESENT

¶6

THE HONOURABLE SMT JUSTICE LALITHA KANNEGANTI

¶7

{

¶8

WRIT PETITION NO: 35763 OF 2022

¶9

Between:

¶10

Pinlari Shaik Shavali S/o. P.Moulali Aged 36^years, Occ. Agriculture R/o' 1 1 76 BC colony Maldakal MaMal, Viftalapuram Gadwal District, Telangana 509127

¶11

...PETITIONER

¶12

AND

¶13

1 The State of Telangana, Rep.^{by its} Secretary,^{Deptof Panchayatral and} Rural Development, Secretariat, Hyderabad. 2 Vittalapuram village Grampanchayat,^{Rep. by PanchayatSecretary_} - - _ -_ Vittalaiuram village Malddkal^Mandal, Gadwal^{District,Telangana509127} 3. The District Panchayat Officer,^{JogulambaGadwal District, Telangana} 509127 4. The District Collector, Jogulamba Gadwal^{District, Telangana.} 5. Chakali Mahesh, S/o. Chakali^{NarasimhluAged and Occ. not known to} petitioner R/o. 1-2-58, Vittalapuram village Maldakal^Mandal, Gadwal^District, Telangana 509127

¶14

.ri

¶15

...RESPONDENTS

¶16

Petitron under Article 226 of the Constitution^{of lndia prayingthat in the} circumstances stated in the affidavit filed therewith,^{the High Court maybe} pleased to issue a Writ, Order or a direction, more^particularly one^{in the nature} of Writ of Mandamus directing the^{respondents to considerpetitioners} representations dated 12-06-2022, 20-06-2022,^{29-06-2022and take actionin} accordance with law and also^{declarhg the highhandedaction of the} respondents in not considering the above representation^{as arbitrary, unjustand} violative of Article 14.21 and 300-4 of the Constitution^{of lndia.}

¶17

lA NO: 1 OF 2022

¶18

Petition under Sectlon 151 CPC^praying that^{in the circumstancesstated} in the affidavit filed in support of the^petition, the^{High CoLrrtmay be pleased to} direct the Respondents to consider^{my representationsdated 12.06 2022'}

{

20.06.2022 ' 29.06^{2022 and take action in accordancewith law, pending} disposal of the writ^{petition in the interest of equity of iustice'}

¶25

Counsel for the Petitioners:SRl.^{P ANIMI REDDY,Advocate}

¶26

Counsel for the Respondents^{No. 1,3,4: GP FORPANCHAYAT RAJ RURAL} DEV

¶27

Counsel forthe Respondent^{No. 2: SRIKALYAN RAo,Advocate}

¶28

Counsel for the Respondent^{No'5: NoneAppeared}

¶29

The Court made the^{following:ORDER}

¶30

THE HON'BLE SMT. JUSTICE LALITHA KANNEGANTI

¶31

WRIT PETI TION No. 35763 OF 2022

¶32

ORDER:

¶33

This writ petition is filed with the following prayer:

¶34

"...to issue a Writ Order or direction more particularly one in the nature of Writ of MANDAMUS directing the respondents to consider petitioner's representations dated, 12.06.2022, 20.06.2022, 29.06.2022 and take action in accordance with law and also declaring the highhanded action ofthe respondents in not considering the abovc representations as arbitrary, unjust and violative of Article 14, 2l and 300_A of the Constitution of India and pass..."

¶35

The learned counsel for the petitioner Mr. p. Animi Reddy

¶36

¶37

submits that the petirioner gave representation dated 29.06.2022 to the officiat respondents stating that the unofficial respondent No.5 is making construction itlegally on the road whereby the ingress and egress ol the drainage s)stem and manhole area are effected and in spite of that no action has been taken.

¶38

Mr. R. Chandra Shekar Reddy, leamed Standing Counsel submits that the official respondents will coosider the representation of the petitioner dated 29.06.2022 and would take appropriate action in accordance with law.

¶39

¶40

Recording the submission of the leamed Standing Counsel, the u,rit petition is disposed of directing respondent Nos.l to 4 to take appropriate action on the representation of the petitioner dated 29.06.2022 in accordance with law within a period of six (06) weeks by giving due notice to the unofficial respondents. As this court has directed the respondents to issue notice for passing any order, this court has issued personal notice to the unofficial respondent in this writ petition.

¶41

¶42

Accordingly, the writ petition is disposed of. There shall be no order as to costs_ 6 As a sequel, miscellaneous petitions pending, if any, shall

¶43

stand closed

¶44

sD/-Nc;ltlsti=#Hs,EtR

¶45

//TRUE^COPY// SECTION^OFFIGER

¶46

to'',l . ,n" Secretary, Dept.of Panchayatraj and Rural Development'^{Secretariat'the}

¶47

: Yir*^ll*Hr.a; ffiffi;;gq"ftEt1,p'ln:*i1=^" i, ffiftq1'ffi,.,

¶48

7 Two^{CD CoPies} 8 One^SPareCoPY \y

I]S

)

{ j

{

HIGH COURT

DATED:21 11012022

ORDER

WP.No.35763 of 2022

DISPOSING OF THE WRIT PETTTION WITHOUT COSTS

¶59

Pinjari Shaik Shavali v. The State of Telangana

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Pinjari Shaik Shavali v. The State of Telangana

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

Kamani Madhusudhan Vs The State of Telangana and 2 others

Sri Jojappa Pasala Vs The State of Telangana

Sri. Uppu Jagadishwar Vs The State of Telangana and 6 others

Nethula Bhumaiah Vs The State of Telangana

Sri Sisir Chalasani Vs Sri Somesh Kumar, IAS

M.Murali Raju Vs The Greater Hyderabad Municipal Corporation