Dismissed

Desaboina Rajyam v. The State of Telangana

Telangana HC6 Nov 2023WP/27271/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

A writ petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India and Section 151 CPC, wherein the petitioner sought to declare the inaction of respondent Nos. 2 to 4 illegal and arbitrary regarding a nomination change in the Raithu Bheema Claim Policy. Upon consent of counsel, the matter was disposed of at the admission stage.

What did the court decide?

Directed the 2nd respondent to consider the representation submitted by the petitioner dated 21.07.2023 and pass appropriate orders after giving notice and opportunity to respondent Nos. 3 to 5 within

Desaboina Rajyam Vs The State of Telangana — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Telangana HC (2023)

¶1

¶2

[³³⁰³ I

¶3

IN THE HIGH^{COURTFOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA} AT HYDERABAD

¶4

(Special Original Jurisdiction)

¶5

MONDAY, THE SIXTH^{DAY OF NOVEMBER} TWO THOUSAND^{AND TWENTY THREE}

¶6

PRESENT

¶7

THE HONOURABLE^{SRI JUSTICEJ. SREENIVAS RAO}

¶8

WRIT PETITION NO: 27271^{0F 2023}

¶9

Between:

¶10

Desaboina Raiyam, Wo^{Pedanarsaiah, Ag} ed about 60 Years, Occ. Agriculture Coiilie, R/o.^{H.No 6-26,Church} Opposite Line, Kandibanda viiiage, Mellacheruvu^{Mandal, Suryapet District'}

¶11

..PETtTIONER

¶12

AND

¶13

1 The State of Telangana,^{Rep. by its Principal Secretary' Revenue Department} Secretariat budding,^{Hyderabad T.S}

¶14

¶15

The District Agriculture^{officer, Suryapet, SuryapetDistrict.}

¶16

J The Assistant Director^{of Agriculture, Huzurnagar, Suryapet District'}

¶17

The Mandal Agriculture^{Officer, Mellacheruvu Mandal, Suryapet District}

¶18

4 The Mandal Agriculture^{Officer, Mellacheruvu Mandal, Suryapet District} 5 Garrdra Ramya @^{DesaboinaRamya,Wo Kiran KumarReddy'.} ?S-9d^2l , ;;;;: b;;.^{ti;riewiie,nlo.Hanumanthunigudem(v),Matampallv Mandal'} Suryapet District.

¶19

...RESPONDENTS

¶20

Petition under Article^{226 of the constitution of lndia praying that in the} circumstances^{stated in the affidavit filedtherewith,the High Court maybe} pleasedtoissueanappropriatewrit.olde.rordirectionmoreparticularlyonein ihe nature of^{WRIToF MANDAMUSdeclaring the in actionof the respondent} no.2to4nottakinganyactiononmyrepresentationdl,2ll0Tl2023andnot upuating the^{nominJe name of the petiiioner instead of Desaboina Ramya (Ex} wife of deceased)^{in the n"ith, An"JraClaim Policy No.504504504 and ihe3'd} resoondent addressed^{a letter to the 2nd respondentto take necessary action} ;;;'il; 1;'r;;pono"nt^{not taking any actionand not payingclaim a.mountto the} p"iiii""", is illegal, arbitrary^{and violation of principles of naturaljustice}

¶21

(Respondent No.5 is impleaded^{as per C'O' dated06'1 1'2023in lA No'2 ol 20231}

¶22

--7

¶23

lA NO: 1 OF 2023

¶24

PetitionunderSectionl5lCPCprayingthatinthecircumstancesstated in the affidavit filed in support^{of the peiition, ine nigr'Court may be pleased to} direct the respondent no.) to^{4 to updatethe petitioner name in the Raithu} Bheema scheme as^{nominee insteadof her son ex wife namely Desaboina} Ramya and^pay the claim^{amountto the petitioner pendingdisposal of the main} writ petition.

¶25

Counsel for the Petitioner:^{SRI K. VENKATARAMANAIAH}

¶26

Counsel for the Respondent^{No.1: GP FOR REVENUE}

¶27

Counsel for the Respondent^{No.2 TO 4: GP FOR AGRICULTURE}

¶28

The Court made^{the following:ORDER}

¶29

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE J.SREENTVAS^RAO

¶30

WRIT PETITION No.27271^{of 2o23}

¶31

ORDER:

¶32

This writ petition is frled seeking writ of Mandamus^{to declarethe} action of respondent Nos.2 to 4 in not^{taking actionon the representation} d.ated 21.07.2023 and not updating the^{nomineename of the petitioner} instead of Desaboina Ramya in the Raithu^{BheemaClaimPolicy} No.504504504, as illegal, arbitrary and^{violation of the principlesof} natural^justice.

¶33

\ \

¶34

With the consent of learned counsel for the^{petitioner as wellas} learned Assistant Government Pleader^{for Agriculture appearing on behalf} of respondent Nos.1 to 4, the matter is^{disposed of at the admission stage.} As the learned counsei for the^{petitioner restrictedhis prayer to dispose of} the representation dated 21.07 .2023^{submittedby the petitioner,thc} notice in respect of respondent^{No.5 is dispensed with.}

¶35

l,earned counsel for the petitioner submits^{thal tlle petitioner} submitted a representation to^{respondentNos.2 to 4 on 21.07 .2023} requesting them to update the^{petitioner'snameas nomineein the placeof} respondent No.S. In spite of the same, the^{respondents have not taken} any action.

¶36

Per contra, learned Assistant^{Government Pleadersubmits that the} respondents will consider the representation^{submittedby the petiLioner} dated 2l .O7.2023^{and requested this Courtto grantreasonabletime.}

¶37

¶38

In view of the^{abovesaidsubmissions, withoutgoing into the merits} of the case,^{respondent No.2 is directed to consider the representation} submitted by^{the petitioner dated 2l'O7 '2023 and pass appropriateorders} after giving notice^{and opportunityto respondentNo'S' in accordance with} law, within a^{period of eight(8) weeksfrom the date of receipt of a copy of} this order.

¶39

6 With the above^{direction,the writ petition is disposedof'No costs}

¶40

Miscellaneous^{petitions,if any, pending in this writ petitionshall}

¶41

stand closed.

¶42

t''t^"Jt'!tfll,::ffi: /

¶43

,/rRUEcoPY"

¶44

ItW***;wxid,lffil,

¶45

; P-'"'t;.^{to GP FoR REVENUE'Highcourtfor the stateof Telangana'} o. BN^f?ltJr."0,".

BSW*

HIGH COURT

JSR,J

DATED:0611'112023

ORDER

WP.No.27271 ot 2023

1\ rE s rnTu'
(
q
J
t) 1 0 N0\J 2c23 LoZ
*
ijt' 'j,, r 1 ,j 'reLl

¶54

DISPOSING OF THE WRIT^PETITION WITHOUT COSTS

¶55

,. c"?fi( fi-

Desaboina Rajyam v. The State of Telangana

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Desaboina Rajyam 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

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Gmr Infrastructure Limited Vs Sri. ChalasaniVenkateswara Rao

M/s.Premgopal and Co., Chartered Accountants, Vs Sri C.Parthasarathi, Ias.

A.Srihari, Vs B.Anjaneyulu

K.Sai Reddy, Nizamabad Dist Vs Prl Secy, Iandc Dept, Hyd and 3 Others

The Wholesale Fruit Commission Agents Association and 61 others Vs The State of Telangana and 2 other

Ayyadapu Andalu Vs the State of Telangana