Partly allowed

Mohd.Kareem v. The State of Telangana

Telangana HC26 Dec 2022WP/45130/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Petitioner challenged notice directing him to vacate hospital canteen claiming lack of lawful allotment. Court declined to interfere with tender process but directed respondents to allow petitioner to continue operations until new agency is appointed.

What did the court decide?

Respondents directed to allow petitioner to continue operating canteen till new agency appointed via tender.

Mohd.Kareem Vs The State of Telangana — Contract and Commercial Disputes | Telangana HC (2022)

¶1

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

¶2

MONDAY, THE TWENTY SIXTH DAY OF DECEIUBER TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY TWO

¶3

PRESENT

¶4

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE MUMMINENI SUDHEER KUMAR

¶5

WRIT PETITION NO: 45130 OF 2022

¶6

Between:

¶7

Mohd.Kareem, S/o. Mohd. lbrahim aged about 35 years- Occ:Business, Fi./o. Nagarkurnool d istrict proper.

¶8

...PETITIONER

¶9

AND

¶10

1 The State of Telangana, rep, by its Principal Secretary, Medical and Health department, Secretariat, Hyderabad.

¶11

2 The Superintendant, Government Cieneral Hospital, Nagarkurnool District. 509 209

¶12

The Assistent Director, Government General Hospital, Nagarkurnool -509209

¶13

...RESPONDENTS

¶14

Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed therewith, the High Court may be pleased to declare by writ of Mandamus or any other appropriate writ or order, the Notice Rc. No. GGH/NGKL/2O22, dated 21111t2O22 of the 2nd RespondentThe Superintendant, Government General Hospital, Nagarkurnool District directing the petitioner to vacate the Canteen from the Hostal campus immediately as illegal, arbitrary and unco nstitutional and against the principles of natural^justice, and set aside the same.

¶15

IA NO: 1 OF 2022

¶16

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 suspend the Notice Rc.No. / GGH/NGKL/2022, daled 2111112022 of the 2nd RespondenlThe Superintendant, Government General Hospital, Nagarkurnool District pending disposal of the above writ petition.

¶17

Counsel for the Petitioner : M/s. V.HANUMANTH RAO

¶18

Counsel for the Respondents : GP FOR MEDICAL & HEALTH FW

¶19

The Court made the following : ORDER

I I

I I

'I ,

THE HON BLE SRI JUSTICE MUMMINENI SUDHE J,R KIJMAR WRIT PETITION No.4513O of 2022

¶25

ORDER:

¶26

Heard learned counsel for the petitioner ilnc learned Assistant Gor ernment Pleader for Medical and Heal h

¶27

This w it petition is filed seeking to declart l.he action of respondent 11o.2 in issuing notice vide Rc.No.- __ /GGH/NGKL 12022,^{dated 21.11.2022,directing the petitioner1-o re:move the} canteen fron the hospital campus immediately, as illegal and arbitrary.

¶28

The petitioner herein claims to have been running a canteen in question s nce the year 2OO7 by paying the rent to respondents regularly. F e also claims to have invested hug: amounts for renovating tt e canteen in the recent past, Howe\ (:r, there is no such procee< ing issued in favour of the petitionr'r allotting the canteen to t he petitioner, nor any material to ;h.ow that the respondents have collected the rent from the p(titioner. But, all of a s udden, without granting reasonal rle 1ime, the respondents issued notice to the petitioner rec uiring him to remove the c rnteen available in the hospital camp t-s irrrmediately and thereby r:ausing prejudice to the petitioner.

¶29

It is br )ught to the notice of this Court by leiLrned Assistant Government Pleader for Medical and Heath that a[t<:r trifurcating

¶30

¶31

\ I I

¶32

the Area Hospital as Teaching Hospital, the respondents have taken steps for providing various facilities and in the said course, they have issued Tender Notification, d,ated, 16.12.2O22, calling tor bids for running a canteen in question and the same is going to be linalised shortly.

¶33

Taking into consideration the facts and circumstance3 of the case and also the fact that the respondents have a_lready issued tender notification calling for bids for entrusting the responsibility of running the canteen in thc Area Hospital, this Court is not inclined to interlere rvith the impugned notice. However, if the petitioner participates in the tender process issued on 16. I2.2O22 along with other tenderers, the same may be considered by the respondents, in accordance with law. Till a new agency is appointed, the respondents are directed to allow the petitioner to continue to operate the canteen in the subject premises.

¶34

Subject to the above observation, the writ petition is accordingly disposed of. There shall be no order as to costs. Miscellaneous^petitions, if any, pending in this writ petition shall stand closed.

¶35

S D/. N. CHANDRA SEKHAR^RAO ASSISTAN ISTRAR //TRUE COPY// SECTION OFFICER

¶36

To, 1. The Principal Secretary, State of Telangana,^{Medical and Healthdepartment,} Secretariat, Hyderabad.

¶37

,,ConU-

¶38

2 The Superinter rdant, Government Cieneral Hospitat, Nagitrl.urnool District.

¶39

The Assistent t)irector, Government General Hospital, Na:arkurnool _50g20g

¶40

4 One CC to SR V.HANUMANTH RAO, Advocate IOPUC]

¶41

Two CCs to GI^, FOR MEDICAL HEALTH FW, High Court tc r the State of I elangana, Hy Jerabad [OUT]

¶42

Two CD Copie ;

KSR

GJP

I I I

HIGH COUR]

DATED:2611212022

ORDER WP.No.4513t) ot 2022

¶50

,1
yrE S.r,q 1(:
<br>4, '"'<br>tg ttB 'lL[2]
^-.-.

¶51

WRIT PETITION IS DISPOSED OF. @c+4 &e-.-t"2 3\a\r-

Mohd.Kareem v. The State of Telangana

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Mohd.Kareem 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

Pannala Sesha Reddy Vs The State of Telangana

Gopuraju Ramesh Vs Sri Somesh Kumar , IAS

Madarsa Darul Uloom Jamia Vs The State of Telangana and 3 others

Mohd Shafiuddin Vs The State of Telangana and 2 others

M.M. Vasu Vs The State of Telangana

M/s. Rushi Health Care Services and another Vs The State of Telangana and 5 others