Disposed

Devarla Venkataiah v. State of Telangana

Telangana HC14 Nov 2023WP/34560/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Telangana disposed of a writ petition filed by a successful bidder for a sheep/goat lease. The petitioner challenged the issuance of a show cause notice by the Gram Panchayat without considering his reply to a earlier notice. The Court directed the respondent to consider the explanation within four weeks without taking coercive steps.

What did the court decide?

Direction to respondent No.5 to consider petitioner's explanation and pass orders within four weeks with personal hearing, and ban on coercive steps.

Devarla Venkataiah Vs State of Telangana — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Telangana HC (2023)

¶1

[³³⁰³ ]

¶2

HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD

¶3

(Special Original Jurisdiction)

¶4

TUESDAY, THE FOURTEENTH DAY OF NOVEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY THREE

¶5

PRESENT

¶6

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE J. SREENIVAS RAO

¶7

WRIT PETITION NO: 34560 OF 2021

¶8

Between:

¶9

Devarla Venkataiah, S/o Janaki Ramulu, Aged about 45 years, Occ. Business, Rl/o Veltoor Village, Upununthala Mandal, Nagarkurnool (Mahaboobnagar) District

¶10

...PETITIONER

¶11

AND

¶12

1 State of Telangana, rep. by its Principal Secretary, Panchayath Raj Department, Secretanat, Hyderabad

¶13

2 The District Collector, Nagarkurnool^{(Mahaboobnagar)} District

¶14

3 The District Panchayat Officer, Nagarkumool, Nagarkurnool (Mahaboobnagar) District

¶15

The Munrcipality Achampet. rep. by its Commissioner, Achampet, Nagarkurnool (Mahaboobnagar) District

¶16

The Gram Panchyat Veltoor Village, rep by its Secretary, Veltoor Village, Upununthala Mandal. Nagarkumool^{(Mahaboobnagar)} District

¶17

...RESPONDENTS

¶18

Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of lndia^praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed therewith, the High Court may be pleased to pass an orders, or issue any directions or issue any appropriate writ more particularly in the nature of WRIT OF MANDAMUS declaring the action of the sth respondent in not considering^petitioner reply dt.18/10/2021 to show cause notice dt.O{l1Ol2O21 and consequently set aside the show cause notice dt.0411012021 .

¶19

IANO:1OF 2021

¶20

Petition under section^{151 CPC prayingthat in the circumstancesstated} in the affidavit filed in support^{of the petition,the High court maybe pleasedto} direct the 4th respondent^{not to conduct santha (lvlarket,) on every Saturday} which is causing contrary to^{the law and sever loss to the petitioner,pending} disposal of main W.P.^{in the interest of Justice}

¶21

Counsel for the Petitioner:^{SRIV.PRAVEEN KUMAR} Counsel for the Respondent^{No.1 to 3: AGP FOR PANCHAYAT RAJ} Counsel for the Respondent^{No.4: SRIJAGAN MADHAV RAO' SC FOR MCPL} Counsel for the Respondent^{No.5: SRI R.CHANDRASHEKAR REDDY,} SC FOR ZP, MP & GP

¶22

The Court made the following:^ORDER

¶23

HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE J. SREENTVAS RAO

¶24

WRIT PETITION No.3456O of 202L

¶25

ORDER:

¶26

This Writ Petition is hled seeking the following relief:-

¶27

"to poss^qn order or issue ong direction or issue ang appropiate writ tnore particlrlarlg in the nature of WRIT OF MANDAMUS declaing ttle action of the 5th respondent in not cotrsidenng petittoner replg dt 18 10 2021 to shou) cquse notice dt 04-10 2O21 ctnd consequentlg set asid.e the shotu cause notice dt 04-1O-2O21.'

¶28

Heard Sri V.Praveen Kumar, learned counsel for the petitioner; learncd Assistant Government Pleader for Panchayath Raj appearing on behalf of respondent Nos.l to 3; Sri Jagan Madhav Rao, learned Standing Counsel appearing on behalt of respondcnt No.4 and Sri R.Chandrashekar Rcddy, learned standing Counsel appearing on behalf of respondent No.5.

¶29

Learned counsel for thc petitioner submits that respondent No.5 - (]ram Panchayath conducted public auction for the year 20'21-22 for goats and sheeps as per the Telangana Panchavath Raj Acr and the petitioner participated in the said auction ancl he rvas declared as a successful biclcler for the lezrse period O 1.O7.2021 to 37.O3.2022. As per thc saicl auct iorr , the petitioner is entitled to collect Rs. IOO/ per Sheep/Coat to sell in the

¶30

¶31

market.^{The respondent No'4 - Municipalityissued at'rction} the same work,^{due to which, the} notrce^{lnrespect of} Ho'vever, sustained huge financial^loss. petitloner resPondent No.S- Gram^{Panchayathissued show cause} notice^{on 04 .lO.2O2l directing the petitioner[o payt hc l st} instalment^{of Rs.4,08,5OQ/-'In respectof the same'the} petitioner^{submitted detailed explanationon I8 10 2O2 1 and} without^{consideringthe said explanationrcsponricntNo 5 -} Gram^{Panchayathinsisting the petitioner[o pav thc aboi'e} said amount.

¶32

It appears^{from the recordthat this Courtrvhile} ordering^{Notice beforeadmission on 23'12'2021'dirccledthe} respondents^{to consider the explanation derted 18 1() 2021} submitted^{by the petitioner in respecto[ thc nr'ticc datr:d} 04.lO.2O2l^{in accordance with law lnspite of thc s:ric1order'} till today, the^{respondentshave not consirlcreclthc sarr-rc}

¶33

The learned^{standing Counscl ap['earillgun} behalf of respondent^{No'5submits that thc rcspondcrrlNo-5} will consider the said^{explanation and passit1;pr opriatc} orders in accordance^{with law and rcqucstccl Lh s C''ottrttcr} grant a reasonable time.

¶34

Having considered^{lhe riverl submission:; m:rdc} by the respective parties, without goirlg^{into thc rrrcrils rll thc}

¶35

¶36

case, the Writ^petition is disposed o[ directing respondent No.5 - Gram panchayath to consider the explanation submitted by the petitioner on 1g. IO.2O2| to the show cause notice dated O4.IO.2O21 and pass appropriate orders in accordance with law within a period of four (04) weeks from the date of receipt of a copy o[ the order by giving opportunity to the petitioner including personal hearing and till such time, respondent No.S is directecl not to take any coercive steps.

¶37

Accordingly, the Writ petition is disposed of No costs.

¶38

Pending miscellaneorrs applications, if any, shall stand

¶39

closed.

¶40

ASS'sfADIrfR85SiEIi //TRUE COPYiI .S-..-'

¶41

SECTION OFFICER

¶42

To,

¶43

1 If,q^{PrincipalSecretary, panchayathRaj Department,} Secretariat, H.ydelabad, State of Telangana.

¶44

1. The District Collector, Naglrkurnoot (l,4ahaboobnaqa r) District 3. the District Panchayat Officer. Nag5rkurnool. Nagarkumool

¶45

(Mahaboobnagar) District

¶46

The. 9ommissioner, Municipalrty Achampet, Achampet, Nagarkurnool (Mahaboobnagar) District

¶47

The Secretary,. Gram Panchyat Vellor_.rr Village. Veltoor Vrllage, Upununthala !and_a!^{Nagarkumool( Maha-boobnaqar)Distiict} 6. One CC to SRI V.PRAVEEN KUMAR: AdVocate toPUCI One CC to SRI JAGAN MA-D_!AV RAO, SC rOn'lrrCerlOeUCl Oqe CC to SRt R.CHANDRASHEKAR REDDY. SC FOR Z'p, Mp & cp [oPUC] 9. Two CCs to GP FOR PANCHAYAT RAJ, High Court for the State of Telangana at Hyderabad [OUTI 10 Two CD Copies BSR GJP Z.

a,-,-.---.!--

0 t

HIGH COURT

DATED:^1411112023

ORDER

WP.No.34560^{of 2021}

¶54

ATE o
-(
a
:i t'
11 sEg tt8
,o<br>i-).',
1 r,,.
.:- .t: -rii

¶55

DISPOSING^{OF THE WRIT PETITION'}

¶56

WITHOUT^COSTS

¶57

%r..

Devarla Venkataiah v. State of Telangana

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Devarla Venkataiah v. 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

Kola Srinivas Vs Allneni Ram Mohan Rao

M/s. Vasavi Parboiled Industries, Vs Secy., Civil dept., State of T.S.

M/s. Balaji Nutrients (P) Ltd. Vs The Agricultural Market Committee, Gaddiannaram

M/s Cis-Trans Gene, Vs The Government of Andhra Pradesh

Shankar Lala Jaiswal Vs The State of Telangana

Smt. Pannala Kannamma Vs The Gram Panchayat, Pasara