Disposed

Mohd. Murtuza v. The state of Telangana

Telangana HC1 Sept 2023WP/24352/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In a writ petition challenging the non-execution of a non-bailable warrant under the Consumer Protection Act, the Telangana High Court accepted an undertaking from the State Home Department to execute the warrant within four weeks, resulting in the disposal of the petition without costs.

What did the court decide?

Undertaking given to execute warrant within four weeks; petition disposed without costs.

Mohd. Murtuza Vs The state of Telangana — Consumer Protection | Telangana HC (2023)

¶1

[³³⁸⁶ ]

¶2

¶3

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

¶4

FRIDAY, THE FIRSI DAY OF SEPTEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY THREE

¶5

PRESENT

¶6

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE P.SAM KOSHY AND

¶7

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE LAXMI NARAYANA ALISHETry

¶8

WRIT PETITION NO: 24352 OF 2023

¶9

Between:

¶10

Mohd. Murtuza, S/o. Mohd. Mustafa, aged about 34 years, Occ. Private Service, R/o. H.No.1.2.38/3/4, Model Town Colony, Jahanuma, Near Boston School, Hyderabad.

¶11

Mohd. tvlujataba, S/o. Mohd. Mustafa, aged about 34 years, Occ. Private Service, Fi"/o. H.No.1.2.38/3/4, tModel Town Colony, Jahanuma, Near Boston School, Hyderabad.

¶12

...PETITIONERS

¶13

AND

¶14

The state of Telangana, rep. by Prl.Secretary to Govt. Consumer Affairs, Food and Civil Supplies Dept. Dr.Baba Ambedkar Secretariat, Saifabad, Hyderabad.

¶15

The State of Telangana, rep. by the Prl.Secretary to Govt. Home Dept. Dr. B. R.Ambedkar. Secretariat,

¶16

The Saifabad,Hyderabad-500 Commissioner of004^{police, Cyberabad, Gachibowli,Hyd.} 4. The President, Telangana State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Eruvaka Bhavan, Hyderabad.

¶17

The Station House Officer, Rajendra Nagar Police Station, Cyberabad, Hyderabad.

¶18

The Registrar, lnstitution of Lok Ayukta for the State of Telangana, Bashirbagh, Hyderabad-63

¶19

Syed Hussain Bilgrami, Managing Director,/ Bulders/Developers, Misleads lndia, 2-6-411212, Flal No.501 , Pewma Apartment, Happy Home Colony, Paramareddy Hills, Near MS Creative School, Upperpally Village. Rajendra Nagar [\rlandal, Hyderabad-500 048. Khairatabad, Hyderabad--500 004.

¶20

...RESPONDENTS

¶21

--'.:^/

¶22

Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution o'lndiz prray'ing that in the circumstances staterl in the affidavit filed therewith, the liigh Court may be pleased to issue an orcler or Writ of [Vandamus declarirg the non-disposal of the Execution Applicatior No.45/2019 and also declare the non-exr:culion of the nonbailable Warrant issLed in EA No.45/2019 in CC No.1()3/2018 dt. 18.12.2O2O by the Commissioner o Police, Cyberabad as illegal and in oontravention to the provisions of the Co rsumer Protection Act, 201 9 and directic ns of the Honble Supreme Court and consequently direct the Respond:nt to clisp:se of the EA No.45l2019 duly exe,;uting the Non-bailable Warrant and pass such other order orders as this Honble Court may deem fit and^proper ir the circ;umstances of the CASC

¶23

Counsel for the Petitioners : SRI J.P.RAO

¶24

Counsel for the Respondents No.1&4 : GP FOR CIVIL !;UPPt.lHS

¶25

Counsel for the Respondents No.2,3&5 : GP FOR HOME

¶26

Counsel for the Respondent No.6 : SRI PADALA PRAVIN KUM,\R

¶27

Counsel for the Resp rndent No.7 :

¶28

The Court made the f,>llowing: ORDER

¶29

I \

¶30

¶31

THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE, P.SAM KOSHY

¶32

AND

¶33

TIIE }ION'BLtr SRI JUSTICE LAXMI NARAYANA ALISHE'ITY WRIT PETITION No.24352 of 2023

¶34

OI{DIiR: ftt<,r Ikn'hlc'Sri .lustitc P.S.4M liOSHl')

¶35

Heard Sri J.P.Rao, learned counsel for the petitioners,

¶36

¶37

learned Government Pleader lbr Civil Supplies appearing on behall'of respondent No.l and 4, learned Assistant Govemment Pleadcr lbr Horne appearing on behalf of respondent Nos.2, 3 and 5 and Sri Padala Pravin l(umar, leamed counsel appeariltg on behalf of respondent No.6.

¶38

2 Learned Assistant Government Pleader appearing for Home appearing on behalf of respondent Nos.2, 3 and 5, on instructions, makes such statement that respondent Nos.3 and 5 shall ensure that the execution of the warrant initiated against respondent No.7 shall be complied with at the earliest, within an outer limit of fbur wee ks.

¶39

-) Given the said statement made by learned Assistant Government Pleader for Home appearing on behalf of respondent Nos.2, 3 and 5, this Court is of the opinion that there should not

¶40

¶41

¶42

be any furthr:r^{grievartcc fbr thc petitioner in tlte} lltescnt^writ petrtlon.

¶43

4 Acc,rrdingly, this writ^petition stands^dispos<:d of.^No

¶44

order as to cor ts.

¶45

5 As z sequel, rniscellaneous applica ions^pttnding if^any

¶46

in this writ^per ition, shall stand closed.

¶47

SD/- C. PRAVEEN KUMAR ASSI'''ANT REGIg'fRAR //TRUE copy//

¶48

SECTION OFFICER

¶49

To, '1 . The Prl.Secret rry to Govt. Consumer Affairs, Focd and C;ivil Supplies Dept. Dr.Baba Ambe^jkar Secretariat, Saifabad, Telangana, HyJerabad.

¶50

The Prl.Secre ary to Govt. Home Dept. Dr.B.R.Ambelkar Telangana, Secretariat,

¶51

The Commi;sioner of police, Cyberabad, C;achibowli, Hyd. Saifabad,Hyder abad-500 004

¶52

The President, Telangana State Consumer Disputes Relrilss,al Commission, Eruvaka Bhava n, Hyderabad.

¶53

The Station l- ouse Officer, Rajendra Nagar Prlice Staticn, Cyberabad, Hyderabad.

¶54

The Registrar, lnstitution of Lok Ayukta for the State of Telangana, Bashirbagh, Hy derabad-63

¶55

One CC to SRI J.P.RAO, Advocate. TOPUCI

¶56

Two CCs to GF FOR CIVIL SUPPLIES, High Court for th,: lltate of Telangana at Hyderabad. [3UT]

¶57

Two CCs to tlP for home, High Court for th,: Sta:e of Telangana at Hyderabad. [Ol.lll

¶58

One CC to SRI PADALA PRAVIN KUMAR, Advoca-e. [Ot'}UC]

¶59

1 I . Two CD Copies. BSK GJP

HIGH COURT

DATED:01 10912023

ORDER

WP.No.24352 ot 2023

-a==
.1' -ii\E: ; rA r&
(
I
27 stP 2m
))e)
. ''/+
_^*
'( - _..?
..r9:-.1rr.:i-:
.. ,. ;

¶67

DISPOSING C,F THE WRIT PETITION WITHOUT COSTS

¶68

@
{n
L3
L9 ir

Mohd. Murtuza v. The state of Telangana

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Mohd. Murtuza v. The state of Telangana

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

The Sales Tax Appellate Tribunal Vs M/S.Priyadarshini Cement Ltd.

M/s Sneh Communication Vs Deputy Commercial Tax Officer

The State of Andhra Pradesh Vs M/s. Priyadarishini Cement Limited

Vic Therapeutics Pvt. Ltd. Vs Tax Recovery Officer

M/s. Guru Construction Vs The Deputy Commissioner of Central Tax

Commissioner of Customs Central Excise and Service Tax Vs Wings Aviation Private Limited