Dismissed

Nakkala Bandaiah v. The State of Telangana and 3 others

Telangana HC20 Feb 2023WP/35340/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

A writ petition challenging the failure to implement a society resolution regarding fisheries project property was withdrawn by the petitioner after a lease agreement was executed by the respondents during the pendency of the writ.

What did the court decide?

Writ petition dismissed as withdrawn in view of execution of lease agreement during pendency, with liberty to question the new proceedings.

Nakkala Bandaiah Vs The State of Telangana… — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Telangana HC (2023)

¶1

[³³⁰³ ]

¶2

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

¶3

MONDAY ,THE TWENTIETH DAY OF FEBRUARY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY THREE

¶4

PRESENT

¶5

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE J SREENIVAS RAO

¶6

WRIT PETITION NO: 35340 OF 2022

¶7

Between:

¶8

Nakkala Bandaiah, S/o Shyam Rao, aged 39 years, Ex-President, Fisheries Co-Operative Society, Kotpally, Rl/o Kotpally Village and Mandal, Vikarabad District

¶9

...PETITIONER

¶10

AND

¶11

The State of Telangana, Animal Husbandry,Dairy Development and Fisheries Department, Secretariat, Hyderabad, rep. by its Principal Secretary

¶12

The Commissioner of Fisheries, Matsya Bhavan, Fisheries Department, Government of Telangana, Shanthi Nagar, Vijayanagar Colony, Hyderabad, Telangana State

¶13

The District Fisheries Officer-cum-Ex.Officio Registrar, for the Fisheries Cooperative Societies, Vikarabad, Vikarabad District.

¶14

Fisheries Co-Operative Society, Kotpally Village and Mandal, Vikarabad District represented by its President, Ravirala Anand

¶15

...RESPONDENTS

¶16

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 issue any appropriate writ, order or direction particularly one in the nature of writ of mandamus, declaring the action of the 4th Respondent in not implementing the General Body Resolution dated 15-06-2017 and^proposing to hand over the Kotpally Project and the fish property developed by the 4th Respondent Society in the said project to the^private persons, contrary to the General Body Resolution dated 15-06-2017 as arbitrary, illegal and violative of Articles 14, 19 (1) (g) and 300-4 of the Constitution of lndia and also contrary to the provisions of Telangana Cooperative Societies Act,^'l964 and consequently

¶17

direct the 4th Respondent Society to implement the General Body Resolution dated^'1 5-06-201 7.

¶18

lA NO: 1 OF 2022

¶19

Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court nray be pleased to direct the 4th Respondent Society to implement the General Body Resolution dated 15-06-2017 and not to hand over the project / tank and the fish property in the said tank to the 3rd Parties, pending the above writ petitron.

¶20

Counsel for the Petitioner: SRI. A. PRANEETH FOR P LAKSH]VIA REDDY Counsel for the Respondents No 1 to 3 : GP FOR FISHERIES Counsel for the Respondents No 4 : SRI T.SURYA SATISH The Court made the following: ORDER

¶21

HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE J. SREENIVAS RAO

¶22

WRIT PETITION No.3534O of 2022

¶23

ORDER:

¶24

When the rnatter is taken up for hearing, learned counsel for the petitioner fairly submits that during the pendency of the writ petition rcspondcnt No.4-Society has issued Lease/Auction Proposals on O7.11.2022 and executed Lease Agreement dated 13.1O.2022.

¶25

In view of the same, cause in the writ petition does not survive.

¶26

Learned counsel Sri A. Pranecth, rcpresenting Sri P. Lakshma Reddy, learned counsel for the petitioner seeks permission of this Court to withdraw the present AS Writ Petition with a liberty to avail the remedies, available under law, to question the Lease Agreement dated L3.1O.2O22 ald proceedings of Lease/Auction Proposals dated 07. I1.2022.

¶27

Permission is accorded.

¶28

Accordingly, the writ petition is dismissed as withdrawn granting libcrty as sought by the pctitioner.

¶29

¶30

Misccllancous applications,^{pendingif any, shall}

¶31

stand closed.

¶32

SD/- C. F,RAVEEN K AR ASSISIANT REGI R

¶33

//TRUE COPY// SECTION FFICER

¶34

To, 1. One CC to Sri. P Lakshma Reddy, Advocate [OPUC] 2. One CC to Sri. T.Surya Satish, Advocate [OPUC] 3. Two CCs to GP for Fisheries, High Court for the State of Telangana. [OUT] 4. Two CD Copies TJ GJP $"-

HIGH COURT

DATED:2010212023

ORDER

WP.No.35340 of 2022

1EJ-4
(,
\iA5 7t
*s I:J
a,
\ A:
qlt;
\Yc r-;i:'$ rf
--l--::;
/

¶40

DISMISSING THE WRIT PETITION AS WI'THDRAWN WITHOUT COSTS.

¶41

Nakkala Bandaiah v. The State of Telangana and 3 others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Nakkala Bandaiah v. The State of Telangana and 3 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

Komaram Anil Kumar and Another Vs The State of Telangana and 5 Others

Yenugula Venkat Narayana, Vs The State of Telangana

K.Saritha, D/O K.Tekaram, Vs The State of Andhra Pradesh

Khanam Nader Afshan Vs The Commissioner of Social Welfare

Guguloth Rajesh Vs The Tahsildar

Smt. P. Shobha Rani, Hyd Vs Dist. Collector, R.R. Dist. and 2 Ot