Allowed

Enti Venkateswarlu, v. State of Telangana

Telangana HC4 Apr 2023WP/9033/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Writ petition challenging the action of the District Fisheries Officer for proceeding without considering objections regarding the formulation of preliminary voters list. Petition disposed of with consent; respondents directed to consider representations and pass orders.

What did the court decide?

The 3rd respondent is directed to consider representations dated 02.03.2023 and pass appropriate orders within eight weeks.

Enti Venkateswarlu, Vs State of Telangana — Writ and Judicial Review | Telangana HC (2023)

¶1

[³³⁰³ ]

¶2

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

¶3

TUESDAY, THE FOURTH DAY OF APRIL TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY THREE

¶4

PRESENT

¶5

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE J SREENIVAS RAO

¶6

WRIT PETITI ON NO : 9033 OF 2023

¶7

Between:

¶8

1 Enti Ve.nkateswarlu, S/o. Enti Narayana, Aged about 63 vears. R/o. H.No.S_ 47 . Y adav a Bazar,^paleannaram Ganapavaiam, rrralgonJr'OGtiici."^{""'''"' "}

¶9

1. Parwatha Gurv_aiah, S/o.Ramaiah.,. Aged about 6g years, R/o. H.No.1_g2, Paleannaram Village and Mandal, Nalg"onda Oistrict

¶10

...PETITIONERS

¶11

AND

¶12

1 it^t _.lI:1, fgqna, Represented by its p ri n cipa I Secreta ry, Fisheries, uepartment, Secretariat Buildings, Hyderabad.

¶13

2 The Commissioner, Fisheries Department. Hyderabad, Telangana. C\

¶14

3 The District Fisheries Officer, Syryapet, Nalgonda Diskict.

¶15

4 The Fishermen Coooerative Society, Suryapet, Nalgonda District, Rep. by its President.

¶16

...RESPONDENTS

¶17

Petition under Article 226 ot the constitution of lndia praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit fired therewith, the High court may be pleased to issue a writ of mandamus or any other appropriate writ or direction declaring the action of the 3rd respondent as illegal, arbitrary and in violation of GoMs.No.74 dated 21 .10.2011 and GoMs.No.98 dated 22.1.1964 and consequently direct.the 3rd respondent to prepare a preliminary voters list taking the objections dated 02.03.2023 into consideration then take appropriate action and to call the records.

¶18

lA NO: 1 OF 2023

¶19

Petrtion u rd rr Section 151 CPC prayrng that in the^(rr curnstances stated in the affidavit fr er irr support of the^petition, the High^{Cot 11 may be pleasedto} direct the 3rd re;p^,ndent to consider the objections^ri:isedb l the^{petitionerson} 02.O3.2023 prror ti krng steps for the conduct of electron tr :he^{4th respondent} society, pendrng di p,rsal of the writ petition.

¶20

Counsel for the l)e itioner: M/S. D. HARITHA KIRAN REPRI:S,EN'ftNG SMT. R. ANNAPURNA

¶21

Counsel for the lle ,pondent No. I to 3: GP FOR FISHERIEIi

¶22

The Court made th, following: ORDER

¶23

HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE J. SREENIVAS RAO

¶24

WRIT PETITION NO.9O33 OF 2023

¶25

ORDER:-

¶26

This writ petition is filed for the following relief

¶27

"..-.. to issue a Writ of Mandamus declaring the actlon of the respondent No.3 as illegal, arbitrary and in violation of G.O.Ms.No.74 dated 21.1O.2O11 and G.O-Ms.No.98 dated 22.7.1964 arrd consequently direct the respondent No.3 to prepare a preliminar5z voters list taking the objections dated 02.O3.2023 into consideration, then take appropriate action".

¶28

Heard Ms..D. Haritha Kiran, learned counscl representing Smt. R. Annapurna, learned counsel for the petitioners, learned Government Pleader for Fisheries appearing for respondent Nos.1 to 3. The writ f petition is disposed of urith the consent of learned counsel for the petitioners as well as learned Asst. Govt. Pleader for Fisheries at t}Ie stage of admission.

¶29

The learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the petitioners have submitted representation to the respondent No.3 on O2.O3.2O23 to the notice vide Lr.No.127 lB/2019, dated 24.O2.2O23 and the respondents without considering the objections of the petitioners ald without passing order they are proceeding further.

¶30

Per contra, learned Assistant Government Pleader, appearing for the respondent Nos.l to 3 basing on the written instructions dated

t I

I I I I

03.0.1 -102^I lrrt^{rl.ll'cl1l\ the DistricL Fisht:ries()1iic('l:1 I\iItt} srr:rllllrs : that^(hLr ;r's1ror^{rl 'lllNo..l clisplal'r:d} Prcliminal'.,^r"'olrt '^{lt"Lt) t} Electrons lr', ti M.rnaging Committee oI resPolldent^{]o lqo('r('iiotl} 2+.Ol.lU2^,. l.rr . ilirlg^{,,rb;t:ctiotts. ln pursuanct'oL LlloI il;Ii( \oril()l llltl} memlxrri^,)l r( ir,orl.lcnt^{No 4Socicty havc stibmittt tloJ jcctir,'i:;l'tt} 02.03.202 l, rtn the respondent^{No.3 iscon(LuctinIe tl'ltritt} '\ftcr conclusior ol t't^{--jtrirv,tht' hnal votcrslist rvillbe c'.splar r: I rtr Lc] tht :l (rnh'} thc ()tcrs. li.t riill be^sent to^{state coopcrativelll:<tiorAullroritr,} Hyclerabacl, [t r rrtdurcting^Election.

¶36

In vi,:r', t ht: sanle, the grievance of^{the p('t.itoll( r" isrtlrt'ii-clv} red rcssed.

¶37

A<:cclrlrrq ,. he u,rit^{petition isdispos':do[tt't ordit llh':} instrnctions.^\,1i< h are^{placedon record, furnishedb"h(' rLrsl)' )'l(l'r1lL} No.3.^'l'l-re tes rt nclent^{No.3 is directedto consi(lcr 11t': tcPresert:irtiott} submitted b,r t r<^{petitioners dated02.O3.2023atld;:tss ap[)r')r]riat'} ordcrs in irccort it rc(^{r,'ith law withina periodof erght(t} )^{we t ks lro r thc} date o[ rec,,ri]rl o a c()pv o[ the^{order. There shallbr: n'l o -'l ]r irs to ( osts-}

¶38

Misct llent rtts Petitions, if any,^{pendilg in this''l- ipctitio!rsirall}

¶39

stand clos,^,l.

¶40

$D/-A.V,S.PRASAD ASS STANIJTEGISTRAR /ffRUE COPY// :.;E;i8)N oFFrcER

¶41

To,

¶42

The Principal iecretary,^{Fisheries, Department, Secretaiat Br-rildings,State of} Telangana, Hr, lerabad.

¶43

The C-ommisi oner,^{Fisheries Department. Hyderabad,l elangana.}

¶44

The Districl F ;heries Officer,^{Syryapet, Nalgonda District}

¶45

Th. Fishenn€ I^ilooperalive So-ci6ty,^{Suryapet, Nalgond;l:)istrict' Rep. by its} President

¶46

One CC to S rt R. Annapurna, One CC to S rt R. Annapurna, to S rt R. Annapurna, rt R. Annapurna, R. Annapurna, Annapurna, Advocate [OPUC][OPUC]

¶47

One CC to S rt R. Annapurna, One CC to S rt R. Annapurna, to S rt R. Annapurna, rt R. Annapurna, R. Annapurna, Annapurna, Advocate [OPUC][OPUC] 6. Two CCs tcr^{r tP} for Fisheries, High Court^{for the State o' 'l'elarrgana.} [OUT]

¶48

Two CD Ccpi, s

GJP

HIGH COI.}F T

DATED:04.1( 412023

ORDER

.1 ...',
,/,' -
?
il t 1 lrY ?'l?-3

¶55

WP.No.9033 of 2023

¶56

DISPOSINGi^()F THE WRIT PETITIOT{ WITHOUT C( STS.

¶57

N,/
u? $'

¶58

: i I I )

Enti Venkateswarlu, v. State of Telangana

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Enti Venkateswarlu, 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

Kakarla Venkateswarlu Vs The State of Telangana and 3 others

Kurakula Sai Kumar Vs The State of Telangana

Sk. Ishrath Khan, Vs The State of Telangana Rep. by its Principal Secretary

G.Madhusudhan Reddy Vs Southern Power Distribution Company of Telangana Limited

Smt. Guthula Satyavathi Vs The State of Telangana

M/s. Orange Avenues Vs The State of Telangana and 3 others