Dismissed

P.Raja Lingam, Nalgonda District v. Prl Secy, Housing Dept, Hyderabad and 4 Others

Telangana HC15 Sept 2023WP/2179/2016

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Court disposed of a writ petition under Article 226 filing via their official respondents to consider representations regarding the fifth respondent's employment with fake certificates and pass orders after giving him an opportunity.

What did the court decide?

Official respondents directed to consider representations and pass orders within three months after giving opportunity to respondent No.5.

P.Raja Lingam, Nalgonda District Vs Prl Secy… — Service and Employment | Telangana HC (2023)

¶1

[³³⁰³ ]

¶2

IN THE HIGH^{COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA} AT HYDERABAD (SPecial Original Jurisdiction)

¶3

FRIDAY, THE^{FIFTEENTHDAY OF SEPTEMBER} TWO THOUSAND^{ANDTWENTY THREE}

¶4

PRESENT

¶5

THE HONOURABLE^{SRI JUSTICEJ. SREENIVAS RAO}

¶6

WRIT PETIT! ON^{NO:2179 0F 2016}

¶7

Between:

¶8

PRaiaLinoam.S/oLinqaiahAgedabout54years'occAgriculture'Fi"/o' b. r.i,ili -4, k;ihrijpallv,^{Tifparthi Mandal, Nalgonda Dist'}

¶9

...PETITIONER

¶10

AND

¶11

Prl Secv, Housing^{Dept, Rep.by its Principle Secretary' Housing Department'} Secreta'riat Buildihgs,^Hyderabad.

¶12

The Managing^{Director,Telangana State HousingCorporationUrdu Hall lane'} Himayathnag-r,^HYderabad.

¶13

The District^{Collector, Nalgonda, Nalgonda Dist'}

¶14

Project Director,^{HousingCorporation at Collectorate Permises'NalgonCa} Dist.

¶15

P Balaiah, S/o.^{Lingaiah,Aged about 55 y-egrs,Occ Employee'D No'1-2'} Keshrajpally, Tipparthi^{Mandal Nalgonda Dist'}

¶16

Jella Vidya^{Sagar S/o. J. Dasharadha Aged about^35 years' Occ:} . - U;l;"p1"'y;d, fuo. n.ruo.o-s-61, RavindE Nagar, Beat Market' Nalgonda' Nalgonda District.

¶17

(Resoondent No.6 is impleaded as^per C'O'^{dated15/09/2023 in lA No'4/2O16} twp[,tp^xo.tzasrlro)

¶18

...RESPONDENTS

¶19

Petition under Article^{226 of the constitutionof lndiaprayingthat in the} circumstances stated^{in the affidavitfiledtherewith,the High courtmay be} pleasedtoissueawrit,orderordirectionmoreparticularlyoneinthenatureof writ of Mandamus declaring^{inactionof the respondents in not taking action} against the 5th respondent^{for takingemploymentin state housing corporation} with the fake certificates^{pursuant to the representationsof the petitionerdt.} 15- 09-2014 and^{0',|-09-2015as being arbitrary illegal and unconstitutionaland}

¶20

E tIt $ I !I i l 1 l I i i i

¶21

¶22

consequently direct^{the official respondents1 lo 4 to take action against the sth} respondentinpursuanceoftherepresentationofthepetitionerdt.l5-09-2014 and 01-09-2015.

¶23

Counsel for the^{Petitioner: SMT. K. HEMALATIHA}

¶24

Counsel for the^{RespondentNo.1: GP FOR HOUSING}

¶25

Counsel for the^{RespondentNo.2 & 4: SRIC' l3UCHlREDDY'} SC FOII HOSUING^CORPORATION

¶26

Counsel for the^{RespondentNo.3: GP FORRE:VENUE}

¶27

Counsel for the^{RespondentNo.6:SRIS' DUSHYANTH REDDY}

¶28

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

¶29

The Court made^{the following: ORDER}

¶30

HON'BLE siRI JUSTICE J. SREENIVAS RAO

¶31

UIRIT PETITION No.2t79 of 2OL6

¶32

ORDER:

¶33

This writ petition is filed seeking the following

¶34

relief:

¶35

"to issue a u-tit order or direction'more particularlg one in tle nature of wit of the Mandamus declaring inaction of respondents in not taking action against th-e Sth respondent for taking emplogment in state Lausing corporation with tlrc fake certificates pursuant to the representations of the petitioner dt 15.09.201.4 and 01.O9.2O15 as being arbitrary, illegal and unconstitutional and consequentlg direct th.e official respondents 7 to 4 to take action again-st the Sth respondent in pursuance of the representation of tle petitioner dt. 15.O9.2O14 and O1.O9.2O75."

¶36

Smt. K. Hemalatha, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that official respondents have not taken any action on the representations^dated 15.09.2014 and O1.O9.2O15, submitted by the petitioner against respondent No.5.

¶37

Without going into the merits of the case,^the official respondents are directed to^{consider the} representations of the petitioner dated^{15.O9.2O14and}

¶38

¶39

O1.O9.2O15, and pass appropri€rte orders in accordance with law, after giving opportunity to the respondent No.5, within a period of three rnonths from the date of receipt of a copy of this order, il not already considered and disposed of

¶40

Accordingly, the Writ Petition is disposed of. No Costs.

¶41

Pending miscellaneous ap plications, if any, shall

¶42

stand closed.

¶43

SDI K. VENFAIAH ASSISTANT^REGI$TRAR

¶44

¶45

h //TRUE^COPY/ " SECTION-OFFICER

¶46

to''', . -n" Principle Secretary, Housing Departmont' Secretariat Buildings'

¶47

, Til:"ilf#t"ing^{Director' Telangana stateHousingcorporationUrdu Hall lane'} -' Himayathnagar,Hyderabad' r,-,-^^r^,-\io+ g. ihe District Oollector, Nalgonda'^{Nalgono-aurst'} 4. Proiect^{Director'H",;ffi ''d ffi i'ii""'Xii-c"ir"Ct"ratePermises' Nalgonda} Dist.

¶48

Sfl^{j$Ji":3Jrt#'-3t'${31,tX3:tli[o,.',n'.%o,"orreransana} TOUTI

¶49

z. b"'#'dc to^{SRI s. DUSHYANTHREDDY' Advocate.roPUCl} 8. one cc^{to sRl c BUCHifiEoiii'-st-ionioE0ittc coRPoRArloN} TOPUCI

¶50

s f;io"Ct, TOPUCI to^{GP FORREVENUE'High Cor'rrtfor the State of Telangana} at Hyderabad. [OUTI

¶51

10.Two CD^CoPies

¶52

¶53

SB \

HIGH COURT

DATED:1510912023

ORDER

WP.No.2179 of 2016

/ .--=--:. ..
1-
<br>/,.,'
!.
1i 0t1 2tr8 'I
\ ,,

¶59

DISPOSING OF THE WRIT PETITION WITHOUT COSTS

¶60

$"w

P.Raja Lingam, Nalgonda District v. Prl Secy, Housing Dept, Hyderabad and 4 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

P.Raja Lingam, Nalgonda District v. Prl Secy, Housing Dept, Hyderabad and 4 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Kema Venkateshwar Vs The State of Telangana

Sk. Yakub Jani Vs The District Educational Officer

A Shankar Vs Sri Raji Reddy

L. Suryanarayana Vs The State of Telangana

Kancharla Seetharam Reddy, Vs B. Sreedhar Babu

Smt. Porika Anasurya Vs Government of Andhra Pradesh