The High Court of Telangana dismissed a writ petition filed by G. Shanker challenging the Singareni Colleries' deduction of contributions towards the Employees Coal Mines Provident Fund from transportation charges, relying on a prior Division Bench decision.
None
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
'q
[321e I
HIGH COURT 'FORTHE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD
(SPecial OriginalJur'sdiction)
TUESOAY _ ,THETWENTY FIFTHDAYOF APRIL TWO THOUSANDAND TWENTY THREE
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLESMT JUSTICEP'MADHAVIOEVI WRIT PETITION NO:2 8682 0F 2009
Between:
G.Shanker,S/o. Buchilingamm,Aged-40years'Occ- BusinessFl/o'Laxminagar Cofoni, namagundam,Karimnagar District ...,ET'T.ONER
...,ET'T.ONER
AND
...RESP.NDENTS
Petition underArtacle226 of the constitution of lndia praying that in the circumstancesstate! in the affidavit filed therewith'the HighCourt maybe pleasedtoissueawrit,orderoradirection,moreparticularlyoneinthenatureof Writ of Mandamusdeclaringthe action of the Respondents 1 to 3 in so far as insisting forpaymentof EmployeesCoal MinesProvident Fund by the petitioner TransportCompanytowardsContractor,scontributionpursuanttotheWork order No.7600002838,daled 28.11.2009 as well as agreement bonddated 19.12.2009 andthe steps taken for deducting the same from the amounts payable to thepetitioncr towards transportation charges in accordance with the above saidwork order as well as agreementbondas illegal, arbitraryand contrarytotheCoal.MinesProvidentFundandMiscellaneousProvisionsAct, 1948 and the Rulesmade there under'
r.A. NO:'t oF 2009(WPMP . NO: 37283 OF2009)
Petitionu nderSection151 CPCPrayingthat in the circumstances stated in the affidavitfiled in support of the petition, the High court maybe pleasedto
$
*li *l!t-i
iI
-.{, {
direct the respondents not to deduct or recover the amounts towards Employees Coal Mines Provident Fund by way of Contractor's Contribution from theamounts payable to the petitioner towards transportation charges, pending disposal of the writ petition.
Counsel for the Petitioner: SRl. P. LAKSHMA REDDY
Counsel for the Respondents No.1to3: SRl.NANDIGAMKRISHNARAO
Counsel for the Respondent No.4: SRl.DEEPAKBHATTACHARJEE
The Court made the following: ORDER
t
THE HONOURABLE SMT JUSTICE P.MADTIAVI DEVI
W.P.No. 2AGA2 of 2OO9
ORDER:
Mr.A.Praneeth, learned counsel, who appeared for the petitioner, agreed with the contentions of the counsel for the respondent ttrat the issue in t-his u,rit petition is covered by the decision of the Division Bench of this Court in W.P.No.331l I of 2013 and batch, dated 26.07.2022. The copy of the decision is filed before this Court
petition, shall stand closed.
SD/.L.SIVA PARVATHI ASSISTANT GIST
I
//TRUE COPY// SECTI OFFICER
To,
l One CC toSRI P. LAKSHMA REDDY, Adyoc.aleto?Ugl-..^. i SiiE dd i6 sli.rlnruotcnntt rRtsumnRno,Advdcatet9l-r'/9.1. 5 SliE 6E i" sHitjeEFnkrinArrncnnn.lEE, Advocate[oPUC] 4. Two CD CoPies
{
BM
BS Pv.q,
x
t
HIGH COURT
DATED:2510412023
ORDER
WP.No.28682 of 2009
1i - 1H S i/i >-
/..'.
i. Ii j 2[23
..
{
DISMISSING THE WRIT PETITION WITHOUT COSTS
Pnrq,
>1|. c
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the High Court should issue a writ declaring the Respondents' insistence on payment of Employees Coal Mines Provident Fund by the petitioner as illegal.
Whether the Respondents are directed not to deduct transport charges pending disposal of the writ petition.
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
W.P.No.33111 of 2013 and batch, dated 26.07.2022Followed¶34
2 provisions across 2 enactments
G. Shanker
The Singareni Colleries Co. Ltd.,
P. MADHAVI DEVI
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
