Allowed

Sham Kumar v. Telangana State Industrial Infrastructure Corporation Ltd. and 2 Others

Telangana HC25 Jan 2023WP/25104/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Hon'ble Justice P. Madhavi Devi allowed the petitioner's prayer to make the interim order of 04.10.2021 absolute. The Court directed Respondent No.1 to comply with interim directions within two months and restrained Respondents No.1 and 2 from taking coercive steps.

What did the court decide?

Direction to Respondent No.1 to comply with interim directions of 04.10.2021 within two months; restraint on Respondents No.1 and 2 from taking coercive steps pending compliance.

Sham Kumar Vs Telangana State… — Constitutional and Fundamental Rights | Telangana HC (2023)

,...)

[³²¹⁹ ]

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

¶5

WEDNESDAY,THE TWENTY FIFTH DAY OF JANUARY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY THREE

¶6

PRESENT

¶7

THE HONOURABLE SMT JUSTICE P.MADHAVI DEVI

¶8

WRIT PETITION NO: 25104 OF 2021

¶9

Between:

¶10

Sham Kumar, S/o. Late Gheesa Ram, Aged 74 years, Prorietor of M/s.Ashok Rerolling Mills Rl/o.5-8-4, Abids South, Station Road, Nampally, Hyderabad50000'1.

¶11

AND

¶12

...PET|T|ONER

¶13

1 . Telangana State lndustrial lnfrastructure Corporation Ltd., Rep by its Managing Director, 6th Floor, Parishrama Bhavan, Basheerbagh, Hyderabad500029

¶14

Manager (AM) and Commissioner, lndustrial Area Local Authority, lP Nacharam, Telangana State lndustrial lnfrastructure Corporation Ltd., 1-A, Nacharam to Chilkanagar Road, Road No.1 , lP Ncharam, Hyderabad-76.

¶15

Greater Hyderabad Municipal Corporation, Rep- by its Commissioner, Tank Bund Road, Hyderabad.

¶16

..,RESPONDENTS

¶17

Petition under Arlicle 226 of the Constitution of lndia praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed therewith, the High Court may be pleased to issue a Writ of Mandamus or any other appropriate Writ, Order or Orders, Direction or Directions to direct the 2nd and 3rd respondents to act in accordance with law and not to interfere in any manner with the activity of the petitioner in running the business of furniture manufacture along with Factory Outlet in the premises bearing Plot No.P9/1, lDA, Nacharam, Hyderabad without following due process of law

¶18

lA NO: 1 OF 2021

¶19

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 direct the 2nd and 3rd respondents and its subordinates not to interfere in any manner with the activity of the petitioner in running the business of furniture manufacture along with Factory Outlet in the premises bearing Plot No.P-P/ 1 ,

¶20

lDA, Nacharam, Hyderabad without following due process of law, pending disposal of the Writ Petition

¶21

Counsel for the Petitioner: SRl. VEDULA CHITRALEKHA

¶22

Counsel for the Respondents No.1&2: SRl. L. PRABHAKAR REDDY SC FOR TSIIC Counsel for the Respondents No.3: SRl. SAMPATH PRABHAKAR REDDY, SC FOR GHMC The Court made the following: ORDER

¶23

THE HONOURABLE SMT JUSTICE P.MADHAVI DEVI

¶24

W.P.No. 251o4 of 2O2l

¶25

ORDER:

¶26

In this writ petition. the petitioner is seeking a direction to the respondents No.2 and 3 to act in accordance with law and not to interfere in any manner with the activity of the petitioner in running the business of furniture manufacture along with factory outlet in the premises bearing Plot No. P9/ I , IDA, Nacharam, Hyderabad, without following due process of law and pass such other orCer or orders as this Honble Court may deem fit and proper in the circumstances of the case.

¶27

This Court Lry order dated 04 1O.2O2l has taken note of the allegation of the respondents that thollgh the land has been obtained from the respondents for setting up of industry and manufacturing of stmctural steel, it *'as not being used for industrial purposes, but has set up a show room for fumiture and interior outlet. In view of the above, this Court had directed the respondents to issue notice to the petitioner and pass appropriate orders after receiving explanation of the petitioner eihd that tili such time, no coercive steps were to he taken by \ the respondents.

¶28

¶29

PMD,J w.P.No.25t04 ol 2O21

¶30

Learnecl counsel lor the petitioner submitted that till date, no notice has been issured iry the respondents.

¶31

zl . Lea;'ne<l counsel for the respondents, however, sought time to file a r;ounter.

¶32

At this juncture, thc learned counsel for the petitioner prayed that the interim order dated 04.10.2021 be made a bsolute and the respondents be directecl to comply with the directions of this Court^,'vithin a time lrame. Thc learned counsel lor the rcspondents is also hcard.

¶33

[n vieu of the above submissions, this Court deems it ht and proper to direct the respondent No.1 to compiy with thc interim directions of this Court dated 04 .1O.2O21 within a period of t-wo months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order and till such exercise is completed, the respondents No. 1 and 2 are directed not to take any further coercive steps pursuant to the notices dated 14.09.2O21 and 21.O9.2021.

¶34

7 . Accordingly, this r.vrit petition is disposed of with above directions. There shall be no order as to costs.

¶35

¶36

PMD,J W.P.No.2s104 oJ 2O21

¶37

I I

¶38

Miscellaneous petitions, if any, pending in this writ

¶39

petition, shall stand closed.

¶40

SDi- MOHD.SANAULLAH ANSARI ASSISTANT REGISTRAR

//TRUE COPY//

SECTION OFFICER

To,

1 The Managing Director, Telangana State lndustrial lnfrastructure Corporation Ltd. 6th Floor, Parishrama Bhavan, Basheerbagh, Hyderabad-500029

¶45

2 One CC to SRl. VEDULA CHITRALEKHA, Advocate [OPUC] 3 One CC to SRl. L. PRABHAKAR REDDY, SC FOR TSIIC [OPUC] 4 One CC to SRI.SAMPATH PRABHAKAR REDDY,SC FOR GHMC [OPUC] Two CD copies

ANF

HIGH COURT

DATED:2510112023

ORDER

WP.No.25104 of 2021

Q;
{ 69 STA I€
14 ttB ?lli
i)
i..
+ {'1, i1:- "

¶54

DISPOSING OF THE WRIT PETITION WITHOUT COSTS

Sham Kumar v. Telangana State Industrial Infrastructure Corporation Ltd. and 2 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sham Kumar v. Telangana State Industrial Infrastructure Corporation Ltd. and 2 Others

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

Shri Vaddepally Srishailam Vs Shri Nukala Raghuaveer Reddy

Naveen Associates Vs The State of Telangana

Mohammed Abdul Raoof Vs The State of Telangana And 3 Others

M. Srinivasa Reddy Vs Southern Power Distribution Company Ltd.

M/s. Sri Sai Baba Cellulose Pvt. Ltd. Vs The State of Telangana

Khaja Moinuddin, Vs The Chairman and Managing Director