Dismissed

Maskala Laxman v. State of Telangana

Telangana HC20 Apr 2023WP/10905/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Constitution Bench of the Hon'ble High Court for Telangana permitted the withdrawal of Writ Petition No. 10905 of 2023, which challenged the rejection of applications to form a new fishermen's cooperative society. The writ petition was dismissed as withdrawn without costs.

What did the court decide?

The writ petition was dismissed as withdrawn, with liberty to file a fresh writ petition granted.

Maskala Laxman Vs State of Telangana — Constitutional and Fundamental Rights | Telangana HC (2023)

¶1

[³³⁰³¹

¶2

HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD

¶3

(Special Original Jurisdiction)

¶4

THURSDAY, THE TWENTIETH DAY OF APRIL TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY THREE

¶5

PRESENT

¶6

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE J.SREENIVAS RAO

¶7

WRIT PETITION NO: 10905 OF 2023

¶8

Between:

¶9

Maskala Laxman, S/o Maskala Balaiah, aged about 25 years, Fl/o H.No. 1-34, Rampur Village, Kotagiri Mandal, Nizamabad District.

¶10

Masikela Sairam, S/o Masikela Rajaiah, aged about 29 years, R/o H.No. 1-34, Rampur Village, Kotagiri Mandal, Nizamabad District.

¶11

Gundla Sailu, S/o Gundla Poshetty, aged about 39 years, Rl/o H.No. 1-134, Rampur Village, Kotagiri Mandal, Nizamabad District.

¶12

Maskala Balaiah, S/o Maskala Lingaiah, aged aboul 45 years, R:/o H.No. 1- 34, Rampur Village, Kotagiri Mandal, Nizamabad District.^'

¶13

M,askala Raju, S/o Maskala Kistaiah, aged about 22 years, Rl/o H.No. i- 108/18, Rampur Village, Kotagiri Mandal, Nizamabad Disirict.

¶14

Masikela Dasthagiri, S/o Masikela Rajaiah, aged about 32 years, Ri/o H.No. 1- 34, Rampur Village, Kotagiri Mandal, Nizamabad District.

¶15

G-u1d]a Gangadhar, S/o Gundla Poshetty, aged about 32years, - Rl/o H.No. 1- 134, Rampur Village, Kotagiri Mandal, Nizamabad District.

¶16

M.yakala Sailu, S/o Gangaram, aged about 52 years, Rl/o H.No. 1-34, Rampur Village, Kotagiri Mandal, Nizamabad District.

¶17

M-ashkala Sailu, S/o Mashkala Poshetty, aged about 20 years, Ri/o H.No. 1- 108/'18, Rampur Village, Kotagiri Mandal, Nizamabad Distiict.

¶18

'l0.Maskala Nadipi Rajaiah, S/o Maskala Linga Boi, aged about 75 years, Rl/o H.No.1-34, Rampur Village, Kotagiri Mandal, Nizamabad District.

¶19

11.Gundla Poshefty, S/o Gundla Lingaiah, aged about 65 years, Rl/o H.No. 1- '134, Rampur Village, Kotagiri Mandal, Nizamabad District.

¶20

Ushkala_ Ashok, S/o Ushkala Rajaiah, aged about 27 years, R|/o H.No. 1- 108/'18 Rampur Village, Kotagiri Mandal, Nizamabad Distiict.

¶21

...PETITIONERS

¶22

AND

¶23

State of Telangana, represented by its Principal Secretary, Department of Animal Husbandry, Dairy Development and Fisheries, at Secretariat, Hyderabad.

¶24

The Commissioner of Fisheries, Matsya Bhavan, Shanti Nagar, Vijay Nagar Colony, Hyderabad.

¶25

The District Collector, Nizamabad District at Nizamabad

¶26

The District Fisheries Officer, Nizamabad District at Nizamabad.

¶27

Dubas Sairaj, S/o Krishna, aged about 35 years, Occ- Animal Doctor, F/o Rampur Village, Kotagiri Mandal, Nizamabad Dist.

¶28

Neeredi Bhumulu, S/o Bhumaiah, aged about 50 years, Occ- Agriculture, R/o Rampur Village, Kotagiri Mandal, Nizamabad Disthct.

¶29

Kondapur Sailu, S/o Sailu, aged about 45^{years,Rl/o Rampur Village,Kotagiri} Mandal, Nizamabad District.

¶30

B. Chinch6lly Sailu, S/o Bhumaiah, aged^{about45 years,Occ-Agriculture,Fl/o} Rampur Village, Kotagiri Mandal, Nizamabad^District.

¶31

...RESPONDENTS

¶32

Petition under Article 226 of^{the constitutionof lndia prayingthat in the} circumstances stated in the^{affidavit filedtherewith,the High court may be} pleased to issue a writ or writs, order or^{Direction,more particularly one in the} nature of writ of^{Mandamusdeclaringthe action of the Respondentsfor not} considering the^{representationof the petitioners dated 16.3.2023 and not} according^{permissionto them to forma new Fishermencooperativesociety for} Rampur Village^{in Kotagiri Mandal, Nizamabad District as bad, arbitrary,contrary} to the^provisions of^{T.c.s.Act,1 964 and also offendsArts. '.l4, 19 and 21 of the} Constitution of India.

¶33

IA NO :1OF 2023

¶34

Petition under section^{151 CPCpraying that in the circumstances statedin} the affidavit filed in^{support of the petition,the High Court may be pleased to direct} the Respondents^{not to allow persons belonging to Mudiraj/Muthrasi communities} toCarryoutfishingoperationsinthetankadmeasuringAc.60.,l5gtsinSyNo.6T of Rampur Village,^{Kotagiri Mandal, Nizamabad District, in the interestof justice.}

¶35

Counsel for the^{Petitioners:M/s. M.VIDYAVATHI} Counsel for the Respondent^{Nos.1,2& 4: GP FORFISHERIES} Counsel for the Respondent^{No.3: GP FOR REVENUE} Counsel forthe Respondent^{Nos.5 TO 8:} -

¶36

The Court made the^{following:ORDER}

¶37

HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE J. SREENTVAS RAO

¶38

WRIT PETITION No. IO9OS of 2023

¶39

ORDER:

¶40

When the matter is taken up for consideration, Ms. M. Vidyavathi, learned counsel for the petitioner seeks permission of this Court to withdraw the writ petition with a liberty to file a fresh writ petition.

¶41

Permission is accorded.

¶42

Accordingly, the writ petition is dismissed as withdrawn granting liberty as sought by the petitioner

¶43

Miscellaneous applications, pending if any, shall stand closed.

¶44

SD/- P.Ch. NAGABHUSHAMBA ASSISTANT REGISTRAR //TRUE COPY// ') SECTIOIfPFFICER

¶45

To 1. One CC to M/s. M.VIDYAVATHI, Advocate [OPUC] 2. Two CCs to GP FOR FISHERIES, High Court for the State of Tetangana, at Hyderabad. [OUT]

¶46

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

¶47

1. Two CD Copies

PSK. cJPC,$L

HIGH COURT

DATED:2010412023

ORDER

s
t=t-
E.:
<br>

WP.No.10905 of 2023

DISMISSING THE WRIT PETITION AS WITHDRAWN WITHOUT COSTS.

¶55

cFtero\oi\t-3

Maskala Laxman v. State of Telangana

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Maskala Laxman v. 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

Kampa Odelu., Vs the State of Tg., Rep. by Prl.Secy., Hyd., and 3 Others

Panuganti , Chakali Lachanna, Vs The State of Andhra Pradesh

K.Madhavi Vs Child Development Project Officer

Avula Somaiah Vs The State of Telangana

NeeruduVenkanna Vs The State of Telangana

Jella Kishore Vs The State of Telangana