Dismissed

Avula Somaiah v. The State of Telangana

Telangana HC20 Apr 2023WP/8874/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Telangana dismissed a writ petition challenging failure to act against a vexatious petitioner after the penalty already imposed for a violation of forest rules was paid by the third party. Finding the dispute resolved, the court closed the petition and associated miscellaneous applications with no costs.

What did the court decide?

Writ petition closed; miscellaneous applications stood closed; no costs awarded.

Avula Somaiah Vs The State of… — Constitutional and Fundamental Rights | Telangana HC (2023)

¶1

[³³⁰³ ]

¶2

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

¶3

THURSDAY, THE TWENTIETH DAY OF APRIL TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY THREE

¶4

PRESENT

¶5

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE J.SREENIVAS RAO

¶6

WRIT PETITION NO: 8874 OF 2023

¶7

Between:

¶8

Avula Somaiah, S/o late A. Narayana, aged 60 years, Occ Retd. Govt. Employee, R/o. F.No. A-5035NR, Sri Sri Kalakuteers Apartments, Chintalkunta, L.B.Nagar, Hyderabad 500 074.

¶9

...PETITIONER

¶10

AND

¶11

The State of Telangana, rep by its Special Chief Secretary Forest Secretarial Building, BRK Bhavan, Lower Tank bund Hyderabad.

¶12

Prl. Chief Conservator of Forests (Head of Forest Force), Aranya Bhavan, Sifabad, Hyderabad 500004.

¶13

The District Forest officer, KV. Ranga Reddy District At CF49 plus 467. Aranya Bhavan, NH 44, Opp Reserve Bank of lndia, Saifabad, Hyderabad, Hyderabad 500004.

¶14

Greater Hyderabad Municipal Corporation, rep by its Commissioner, BRK Bhavan Hyderabad

¶15

Deputy Commissioner, GHMC, Circle -3A, Hayathnagar, L.B.Nagar, Zone at Saroornagar, Hyderabad -500035.

¶16

K. Mohan Rao, S/o Late K. Hanumantha Rao, aged about 74 yrs, Retd Govt Service, Rl/o F.No. B-105, SNR, Sri Sri Kala kutders Apartments, Chintalkunta, L.B.Nagar, Hyderabad - 500 074.

¶17

...RESPONDENTS

¶18

Petition under Arlicle 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 an order or direction more particularly one in the nature of writ mandamus or any other appropriate writ declaring the action of Respondent No 2 and 3 not consider the representation Dl21.02.2023 given by the petitioner to take action against the sth Respondent is nothing but arbitrary illegal in violation of Constitution of lndia, Consequently direct the Respondents authorities to take action against the 5th Respondent by consider the representalion Dl21 .02.2023.

¶19

lA NO: 1 OF 2023

¶20

Petition under Section 151 cpc praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High court may be pteased to direct lhe Respondent.No3 to disposal of the representation dated 21 .02.2023 pending disposal of the Writ petition.

¶21

Counsel for the Petitioner: SMT. V.RAMANI FOR SRt V.SRTKANTHA RAO Counsel for the Respondent Nos.1 TO 3: Gp FOR FORESTS Counsel for the Respondent Nos.4 & 5: SRI M.DURGA PRASAD, SC FOR GHMC

¶22

Counsel for the Respondent No.6: --

¶23

The Court made the following: ORDER

¶24

HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE J. SREENIVAS^RAO

¶25

WRIT PETITION No.8874^{of 2023}

¶26

ORDER

¶27

This writ petition is filed seeking writ of^Mandamus declaring the action of the respondent^{Nos.2and 3 not} consider the representation dated 21.O2.2O23^{given by the} petitioner to take action against the 5th respondent is nothing but arbitrary, illega-l in violation of Constitution^of India.

¶28

When the matter is taken up for hearing, learned Standing Counsel Sri M. Durga Prasad, appearing on behalf of the respondent Nos.4 and 5 submits that basing on the complaint submitted by the petitioner, the respondent No.5 initiated proceedings against respondent No.6 and imposed penalty of an arnount of Rs.2O,OOO/as assessed by the Forests Authorities and said amount has paid by the respondent No.6 by way of treasury challan No.62040957 54, dated 04.O3.2023.

¶29

Smt. V- Ramani, learned counsel representing Sri V. Srikantha Rao, learned counsel for the^petitioner not disputed the same.

¶30

¶31

Hcrrce, the gr i<,r'ance of the petitioner in tlte writ petition is already lcsolved. Accordingly, the writ petition is closed. No costs.

¶32

As a scquel thereto, miscellaneous applications, if

¶33

any, pending in this writ petition, shall stalds closed

¶34

SD/- V. KAVITHA ASSISTAN]LREGISTRAR

//TRUE COPY//

sEc'i#N oFFrcER

1 One CC to SRI V.SRIKANTHA^RAO, Advocate [OPUC] 2 Two CCs to GP FOR FORESTS,^{High Court for the State of Telangana,at} Hyderabad. [OUT]

¶39

3 OhC CC tO SRI NI.DURGA PRASAD, SC^{FOR GHMC} IOPUC] 4 Two CD Copies

PSK,

,\(-

HIGH COURT

DATED:2010412023

ORDER

WP.No.8874 of 2023

,.*&t
$-
I
I
$

CLOSING THE WRIT PETITION

¶49

WITHOUT COSTS.

¶50

,*-rN'|P

Avula Somaiah v. The State of Telangana

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Avula Somaiah 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

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Kampa Odelu., Vs the State of Tg., Rep. by Prl.Secy., Hyd., and 3 Others

Panuganti , Chakali Lachanna, Vs The State of Andhra Pradesh

K.Madhavi Vs Child Development Project Officer

Maskala Laxman Vs State of Telangana

NeeruduVenkanna Vs The State of Telangana

Jella Kishore Vs The State of Telangana