Disposed

Slg Fabricators v. The State of Telangana

Telangana HC16 Aug 2023WP/21983/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Writ petition challenging inaction regarding allegedly false survey reports. Court directed the Industry Department to consider the petitioner's requests for a resurvey and action against officials. Petition disposed without costs.

What did the court decide?

Directed respondent Nos. 2 and 3 to consider representations for a resurvey and action against officials and pass orders within two weeks by giving notice to all concerned.

Slg Fabricators Vs The State of Telangana — Writ and Judicial Review | Telangana HC (2023)

¶1

|³²⁵²¹

¶2

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

¶3

WEDNESDAY ,THE SIXTEENTH DAY OF AUGUST TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY THREE

¶4

PRESENT

¶5

THE HONOURABLE MRS JUSTICE SUREPALLI NANDA

¶6

WRIT PETITION NO: 21983 0F 2023

¶7

Between

¶8

SLG Fabricators, plot No. 4-6, .C.l.E^{Batanagar Hyderabad,Rep by its} Proprietor, B. Srinivasa Rao, S/o. Nageshwar Rig, Aged about 5.1 yebrs, bcc. Business, R/ o. plot No. 141 , tsrundavan Colony Nizampet, Kuktapally, Hyderabad

¶9

...PETITIONER

¶10

AND

¶11

l The State of reranoana. Rep. by its principar secretary, rndustries and Commerce Departmelnt, secreiarrat'ouliotngs,-ii';;eraoao

¶12

2 The commissioner of rndustries, Government of rerangana, chirag Afl Lane, Abids, Hyderabad.

¶13

3 The Generar Manaoer District rndu-stries center, office at 3rd froor, A Brock, Coilectorare Comp6x Med;h;i- M;tkaj's;; D;i;;i:^'

¶14

4 The Deputy Director, District rndustries center, o/o. at 3rd Froor, A Block, Collectorate Complex, Medchal Matkajgiri bist-rici^-

¶15

D. Venkateshwarlu,, S/o Not Known, Aged about not known Occ Deoutv Director, District rnduskies c_enter otb. 5i aro^{-iill;,"n'iiilk} E;ii#r"Jr;tZ Complex, Medchal Malkajgiri Districi

¶16

6 T. .Ramalingeshwara Goud,, S/o. Not Known, Aged about Not Known Occ lndustrial Promotion officer District rndustries CEnter. olo. ,i'srd Fiooii Block, Coltectorate Comptex, MeOcnai MJtfi;gnt Diitri"t

¶17

...RESPONDENTS

¶18

Petition under Articre 226 of the constitution of rndia prpying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit fired therewith, the High court may be pleased to issue an appropriate writ, order or direction more particularly one in the nature of WRIT OF MANDAMUS declaring the action of the respondent Nos. .l to 3 herein in not taking action on the representations ciated 30t0st2o23 and 3010112023 submitted by me requesting to conduct resurvey and to take action

¶19

against the [es]c rr( ents No. 5 and 6 herein v,rho subntittecl a 'alse survey reports dated 02lO3l2A2'3 ; n1 0610212020 in respect of Plot No (: . C l E Balanagar, contrary tc thr: e;rrli rr survey report dated 30105/2016 :oncLCi rd l)y the rndustrres depannrent is irernr r iegal, arbitrary unreasonable arrd vto a.. ve of Arttcle 14, of the Constrtutirrn of lndia and vrolation of the principles cf nat_rral lustice and conseouently dift)cI llte respondent Nos. 1 to 3 her,:in to r:cnc uct resurvey tn respect of the plc I No. 46. C I E. Balanagar anc talle :cticn agarnst the respondents Nr: I i n,l 6 herein who submitted a false surve y report in respect of the above plot

¶20

lA NO: 1 OF 20'13

¶21

Petitron rrnde S,ection 15'1 CPC praying that in the cir:L mslances stated in the affidavit filec rrr s .rlrport of the petition, the High Court ma,r l. e pleased to direct the responden-Nos '1 to 3 herein to order to conduct resun e/ in respect of PIot No. 46 CIF Fialar ar;ar, by taking action against the respon Jents No. 5 and 6 herein. pend in11 1r:; o rsal of the main writ petition.

¶22

lA NO: 2 OF 2023

¶23

Petrtion ,rnder S:ction'1 51 CPC praying that in the ci.ru'nstrnces stated in the affidavrt filel in s rpport of the petition, the High Cou 1 may b = p eased to direct the respondent l'Jos. 1 to 3 herein not to allot the allege d vacart Iand indicated in the alleged report:i⁽ a ed 0310212023 0610212020 subr,ritted b'r the respondents no. 5 and 6 herern in favour of the third parties in respect of the^)loi No. 46, C.l.E. Balanagar, forthvrith, t€'nding disposal of the main writ pr:titron

¶24

Counsel for the Petil ioner : SRl. KOPPULA GOPAL

¶25

Counsel for the Res; ondent Nos.1 to 4 : GP FOR INDUSTRII:Si COMMERCE

¶26

Counsel for the Resl ondent Nos.S to 6 : NONE APPEARED

¶27

The Court made the ollowing: ORDER

¶28

(

¶29

/i/

¶30

HON'BLE MRS JUSTICE SUREPALLI NANDA

¶31

WRIT PETITION No,21983 OF 2023

¶32

ORDER

¶33

Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Government Pleader for Industries appearing on behalf respondent Nos.1 to 4.

¶34

The petitioner approached the Court seeking the prayer as follows:

¶35

"To issue writ order or direction more particularly Writ of Mandamus declaring the action of the respondent Nos. 1 to 3 herein in not taking action on the representations dated 30.05.2023 and 30.01.2023 submitted by the^petitioner requesting to conduct resurvey and to take ection against the respondent Nos.5 and 6 herein who submitted a false survey reports dated 02.03.2023 and 06.02.2020 in respect of Plot No.A6, C.I.E. Balanagar, contrary to the earlier survey report dated 30.05,2016 conducted by the Industries department is being illegal and arbitrary and consequently direct the respondent nos. 1 to 3 to conduct resurvey in respect of the^plot No.46, C.I.E. Balanagar and take action against the^respondents No.5.and 6 herein who submitted a^{false survey}

¶36

r.err.^-t ir respect of the plot No.46, C.I. ial.rnagar in tir ) inl.erest of jr.rstice.., =

¶37

') r-h c It ari-red Gcrzcrnn)eilt pieader- foi- I-_lLlstries and Co m nr it r:t b-ings on record i.he Written instr.uc.rr.ns issur:d by, the Gen:r I l4anager, District industrietj Cerit.e, Medcha l- iVaikalc iii | )i:;tl-lct and a itare perusal of the sa,ne indicates that "if t. pet,tioner frays the sale deecl lmoun fo- his unit as per lirlv trntient loi-rns,. the re_sr:rvey oF ils urlt can be done at the trme of execution of sale deed es lj lr hisi reeuest and thr: fina sale consicleration will be finalised.,,

¶38

4 ' The r ra in grievance of the petiti()ner r, that the petitioner is rr tenant of the subject land anJ he cannot produc€r Lire ;ale deed and he can produce only tt e lease deed which h,as et e:uted in his favour by the owrrer ot lhe subject land.

¶39

5 The r;p:cific prea oF the petitioner is to r:onsirrer the representatio rs, dated 30.05.2023 and 30.0 t.2023 sutrmitted by the petitio tcr r-equesting to conduct re_sL,rvey a.ld r_o take action aqairrst the respondent Nos.5 and 6,,ruho trcr:or,1ing to the petiti()r,er has submitted false survey repr)r..s, dated

¶40

// /'

¶41

¶42

02.03.2023, 06.02.2020 and 30.05.2016 in respect of^ptor No.46, C.I.E. Balanagar by the Industries Department

¶43

Taking into consideration the facts and circumstances of the case, the Writ petition is disposed oF directing the respondent Nos. 2 and 3 to consider the petitioner's representations dated 30.O7.2023 and 30.05.2023 and pass appropriate orders, in accordance to law by giving due notice to all concerned, in conformity with principles of natural justice, within a period of two(02) weeks from the date of receipt of the copy of this order and duly communicate the said decision to the petitioner.

¶44

With these observations, the Writ petition is disposed of.

¶45

However, there shaii be no order as to costs.

¶46

l{iscellaneous petitions, if any, pending in this Writ

¶47

Petition , shall stand closed.

¶48

SD/-A.V.S. PRASAD ASSTSTANT REGTST(AR ./ &' SECTION OFFICER

¶49

//TRUE COPY//

¶50

To,

¶51

The Principal Secretary, lndustries and Commerce Department, State of Telangana, Secretariat buildings, Hyderabad

¶52

The Commissioner of lndustries, Government of Telangana,^{Chirag All Lane,} Abids, Hyderabad.

¶53

The General Manager, District lndustries Center, Office^{at 3rdfloor, A Block,} Collectorate Complex Medchal- Malkajgiri District.

¶54

The Deputy Director, District lndustries Center, O/o. at 3rd Floor,^{A Block,} Collectorate Complex, Medchal Malkajgiri District

¶55

5 One CC to SRl. KOPPULA GOPAL, Advocate.[OPUC]

¶56

Two CCs to GP FOR INDUSTRIES COMMERCE ,High^{Courtfor the Stateof} Telangana at Hyderabad. [OUTj

¶57

Two CD Copies

SB LS

HIGH COIJR r

DATED:1610it12023

ORDER

1: ;iit s ra r;i o
(3
/,,^
t.,'?
I
.J i'z
1) ,,t 1 [l]E ?[r8 d) Il
i.:!
:..
-^' )1-':

¶64

WP.No.21983 of 2023

¶65

DISPOSING OI] THE WRIT PETITION WITHOUT COS TS.

¶66

(9/:.---.
Y/

Slg Fabricators v. The State of Telangana

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Slg Fabricators 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

Shakeel Ahmed Vs Smt.I.Rani Kumudini, IAS

M/S. Landmark Constructions Vs The Southern Power Distribution Company of Telangana State Ltd.

Poosa Rajamani, Sec-Bad. Vs M/S. State Bank of India and 2 Ors.

Mr. Amer Hussain Vs The Union of India

Abdul Kareem Vs The Regional Manager

Saraswathi Sheri Vs Telangana State Southern Power Distribution Company Limited