The High Court dismissed a writ petition and a miscellaneous petition filed by individuals seeking work orders for village road projects, holding that the case does not survive for adjudication.
The writ petition was dismissed as infructuous with no order as to costs. Pending miscellaneous petitions were stood closed.
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.
[3300 ]
HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction)
IMONDAY, THE SIXTH DAYOF NOVEI'BER TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY THREE
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE NAGESH BHEEMAPAKA
WRIT PETITION NO: 8527 OF 2012
Between:
...PETITIONERS
AND
...RESPONDENTS
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 a writ order or direction rnore particularly one in the nature of writ of mandamus declaring the action of the respondents 1 and 2 in not entering into agreement with the petitioners and not giving the work order to the petitioners even though they were selected as work executive mernbers through their respective Grama Sabhas and inspite the {ormation of road works of various bits were allotted to the petitioners as per the resolutions of their respective
grama sabhas as illegal,arbitrary, nulla nd void against the principles of natural justice and contrary to the guidelines framed by the government and consequently direct the respondents 1 and 2 to enter into agreement with the petitioners by giving work orders to the petitioners with respect to the works allotted to them in pursuance of the resolutions passed by their respective village grama Sabhas in the interest of justice.
1.A. NO: 1 OF 2012(WPMP. N O:10775 OF 20121
Petition under Section 151 of CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased to direct the respondents 1 & 2 to enter into agreement with the petitioners by giving work orders to the petitioners with respect to the works allotted to them in pursuance of the resolutions passed by their respective village Grama Sabhas in the interest ofjustice pending disposal of the above writ petition.
Counsel for the Petitioners: SRI S. SURENDER REDDY
Counsel for the Respondent Nos.'l to 3: GP FOR SOCIAL WELFARE
Counsel for the Respondent No.4: GP FOR PANCHAYAT RAJ & RURAL DEV
The Court made the following: ORDER
\
THE HONOURABTE SRI JUSTI CE NAGESH BH EEMAPAKA
WRIT PETITION N0.8527 oF 2012
ORDER:
Todoy when the motter is ioken up for heoring,
Sri S.Surender Reddy, leorned counsel for the petitioners ond leorned Government Pleoder for Sociol Welfore oppeoring for respondent Nos.l to 3 submitled thot the couse in the writ
petilion does not survive for odjudicolion.
dismissed os infructuous, No order os to costs.
As o sequel. the miscelloneous petitions. if ony, pending
in the Writ Petition sholl stond ctosed. /
/
SD/- K. AI$MAJI z
ASSI STANT REGISTRAR //TRUE COPY// u^t
SECTION dfiFICER
To,
'1. One CC to Sri S. Surender Reddy, Advocate [OPUC]
".-"-
HIGH COURT
DATED:0611112023
ORDER
WP.No.8527 of 2012
-/r.-
.'i$' STAf€
a
q ?
co IE 0Et ?0?3 j
i oi, s ptJ',l\ ,(.O
-<br>
DISMISSING THE WRIT PETITION AS INFRUCTUOUS WITHOUT COSTS
3
k >
2 provisions across 2 enactments
Jadhav Sitharam
Gedam Manoj
Nanaji
Gedam Uddav
Jakkula Madhukar
The Project officer, ITDA Utnoor
Nagesh Bheemapaka
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
