Disposed

Gajula Sririvas v. The State of Telangana

Telangana HC6 Oct 2023WP/27782/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court directed the Principal Secretary, Revenue Department, to number the pending appeal and subsequent stay application, which had remained unnumbered for over a year ordering time-bound disposal of both.

What did the court decide?

Directed the Principal Secretary, Revenue Department to number the appeal and stay petition within a week and dispose of the appeal within eight weeks thereafter.

Gajula Sririvas Vs The State of Telangana — Writ and Judicial Review | Telangana HC (2023)

¶1

[^320e ]

¶2

HIGH COURT^{FOR THESTATEOF TELANGANA} AT HYDERABAD (SPecial Original^{Jurisdiction)}

¶3

FRIDAY, THE^{SIXTH DAY OF OCTOBER} TWO THOUSAND^{ANDTWENTY THREE}

¶4

PRESENT

¶5

THE HONOURABLE^{DR. JUSTICE CHILLAKUR SUMALATHA}

¶6

wRl^{T PETITI ON NO277820F 2023}

¶7

Between:

¶8

1 Gaiula Sririvas,^{S/o Posham, agedabout 51 years'.occ:. General Mazdoor,} o/o KTK-8^{lncline,Bhupalpiril-ny;'H'Nt-gjt87'L'BNagar' Bhupalpally'} Jayashankar'^BhuPalPallY'

¶9

2 Suram ;:ffi;ii;;, Ravi^{ijdil;Errrv'-n;o} Kumar'^{S/o Bhaskar, H'r'ri z:5oo' r"riin aged about nodo' 37 yeal?' Bhuparpallv' Coal Filler' O/o JavashankarKLTK-} BhupalpallY.

¶10

.....PETITIONERS

¶11

AND

¶12

The State^{of Telangana, rep by its Principal Secretary'RevenueDepartment'} Secretariat,^HYderabad.

¶13

The Deputy^{Registrarof Chits, and DeputyRegistrar' Warangal District}

¶14

M/s Saradhi^{Chit Funds PrivateLimited' Bhoopalpally Branch' rep'by its} " 6i,-ririr., ttl.oevenoer Reddy, S/o Raji Reddy'

¶15

.,...RESPONDENTS

¶16

Petition Under^{Article 226 of the Constitutionof lndiaprayingthat in the} circumstances^{stated in the affidavitfiledtherewith'the High Court may be} pleased to issue^{an appropriate Writ' Order or Direction' more particularly onein} the nature^{of Writof Mandamus'to declare the action of the 1't respondentin not} passing any orders^{in the stay applicationfiled along with the Appeal bearing} No-034285 of^{2022 on271812022'seeking to set aside the Award passed by the} 2nd respondent^{in AA,/CF/No.38 g of 2021dl117l2O22'as being illegal'arbitrary'} unjust, unconstitutional^{and consequentlydirect the respondent No lhereinto} dispose^{of the stay application filed alongwith the appeal'}

¶17

¶18

I.A.NO:1 OF 2023

¶19

Petition Under Section 15'1 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pteased to grant stay of all further proceedings including the attachment of the salaries of the petitioners in E.P.No.9 of 2023 in AA/C- No.389/2021 on the file of the Principal Junior Civil Judge, Bhupalpally, pt>nding disposal of the main writ petition.

¶20

Counsel for the Petitioners : SRI K.SHRIKANTH REDDY

¶21

Counsel forthe Respondent Nos.l & 2 : Ms. B.HARITHA, AGP FOR REVENUE

¶22

Counsel for the Respondent No.3 : -

¶23

The Court made the following ORDER

¶24

HOI{fBLE DT. JUSTICE CHILLAKUR SUIITALATHA

¶25

WRIT^{PETITION No.27782} of 2023

¶26

ORDER:

¶27

Heard Sri K.Shrikanth Reddy, learned counsel for the petitioners,^'as well as Ms. B.Haritha, learned Assistant Government Pleader for Stamps and Registration, who is representing respondent Nos.l and 2. In the Iight of the limited relief sought for, issuance of notice to respondent No.3 is felt not necessary.

¶28

This Writ Petition is filed seeking an order more particularly in the nature of writ of Mandamus declaring the action of respondent No.1 i.e., Principal Secretar5z, Revenue Department, Hyderabad, in not passing any orders in the stay application filed by the petitioner along with appea-l bearing No.034285 of 2022 seeking to set aside the Award that was passed by respondent No.2 in AA/CF.No.389 of 2021, dated O1.7.2022, as illegal and arbitrary.

¶29

Arguing in respect of the merits of the case, learned counsel for the petitioners states that the impugned Award i.e., Award passed ln AA/CF.No.389 of 2021, dated O1.7.2O22, by the Deputy Registrar of Chits, Warangal 1S unsustainable in the eye of law and therefore, the writ petitioners, who are the respondents to the said arbitral

¶30

¶31

Dr.Clil...l ll'.P No )t-82 oi l()23

¶32

proceedings, preferred^an appeal^{before respondentNo'1'} Learned counsel submits^{that along v'ith the appeal an} application was filed^{seeking stay of the Award, but neither} the appeal is numbered nor^{the stay application is taken up} arrd therefore. the^{presentWrit Petiticn is ftled.}

¶33

As per thc version of^{the writ petitioners,the appeal} was preferred' on 27.8.2022'^{Thus, the appeal is pending} more than a year and the^{same is the case with the stay} petition filed. The appellate^{authori ty at least could have} numbered the appeal^{and entertainedthe stay petition'} However, nothing of that sort^{appe a-rs to have happened'} Therefore, this Court is of^{the view thirt a direction is required} to be given to respondent No.l^{i.e., appellateauthority to} entertain the stay petition^{immediate..yand also to dispose of} the appeal time bound.

¶34

Resultartly, this Writ Petition^{is disposedof withthe} following direction:-

¶35

Respondent No.1 i.e., Prir,cipal^Secretary, Revenue Department,^{Hyderabrr.d, is directed to} number the subject appeal if^{o therwise in order.} Equally, also to number the^{srtay petition. The} stay application, on being numtrered,^{be disposed}

¶36

¶37

Dr.CSL, J Ll'.P. No. );782 of 202J

¶38

of within a period of one week from the date of

¶39

service of notice to the respondents. The appea_l

¶40

be disposed of within a period of eight weeks

¶41

thereafter. There shall be no order as to costs. 6 Miscellaneous petitions pending, if any, shall stand

¶42

closed.

¶43

SD/. T.JAYASfrEE ASSTSTANT REGTTRAR //TRUE COPY//

SECTION OFFICER

1 The Principal Secretary, Revenue Department, Secretariat, State of Telangana, at Hyderabad. 2 The D_eputy Registrar of Chits, and Deputy Registrar, Warangal District. 3 Two CCs to GP For Revenue, High Court for the State of Telangana at Hyderabad. [OUT] 4 One CC to Sri K.Shrikanth Reddy, Advocate [OPUC] 5 Two CD Copies SA LS \

HIGH COURT

DATED:0611012023

ORDER

Y
18 !]tI 2[21

WP.No.27782 of²⁰²³

DISPOSING OF^{THE W.P} WITHOUT COSTS.

¶54

Gajula Sririvas v. The State of Telangana

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Gajula Sririvas 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

Damuluri Shanthi Vs The State of Telangana

DamuluriNarahari Vs The State of Telangana

Shaik Fayaz Ahmed Vs The State of Telangana

Cherla Anjireddy Vs The State of Telangana

A. Rama Krishna Vs The State of Telangana

Radandi Srinivas Vs The State of Telangana