Dismissed

Karan Patil v. The State of Telangana

Telangana HC13 Sept 2024WP/14772/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The writ petitioner challenged the seizure of 320 quintals of rice as illegal and in violation of Article 19(1)(g). The respondent Assistant Government Pleader submitted that proceedings under the Essential Commodities Act were disposed of on 15.07.2023. Consequently, the High Court dismissed the writ petition as infructuous.

What did the court decide?

Prayer to declare seizure illegal and issue writ of mandamus dismissed as infructuous.

Karan Patil Vs The State of Telangana — Consumer Protection | Telangana HC (2024)

¶1

[³³⁰²¹

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE^S.TATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD (Speciat Original Jurisdiction)

¶3

FRIDAY, THE THIRTEENTH DAY OF SEPTEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FOUR

¶4

PRESENT

¶5

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE K. SARATH

¶6

WRIT PE TITION NO :14772 OF 2023

¶7

Between:

¶8

pro'rietor of Kashi f.T8!,"|fi)l,"tJ%5r1'3lii[,81[ tyss,B?r.,'l fl],J,"g'.e.occ

¶9

AND

¶10

...PETITIONER

¶11

1, Iis"P:?'s3',li11n,i33&".?"gT,l?SJll,:ll$f, ",s's,f fl",:onsumerArrairs,

¶12

2 Ili"?iJi?i::'liaili:85[?il,L1f#,'f,t:1ii,i,li'&!l,ifJ,ntesrated

¶13

I3iii:I::::ii'LiX?:ffi[l*r'^{YadadriBhuvanagiri District,rntegrated}

¶14

4 The Assistant Civil Suootv Officer, O/o District Civil Suppty Office, yadadri Bhuvanagiri Dtstrict, tritbgirateo c"rre.toiij!, nieilVJf, ,gir,i

¶15

R The Deputy^Tahasildar (CS), Choutuppat IMandat, O/o DCSO Office, tntesrated Colectorate, At 6n uva nisi/i _ i;;;;;"8;;r;nasiri Dist

¶16

6 House Officer, Choutuppat potice Station, yadadri Bhuvanagiri Il"iri"l:,,."

¶17

...RESPONDENTS

¶18

Petition under Articre 226 of rhe constitution of rndia praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit fired therewith, the High court may be pleased to issue an appropriate writ, order or direction more particurarry one in the nature of wRrr oF TUANDAMUS declare the seizure of stocks of 320 euintars of Rice ,of the petitioner under cover of panchanama dated 14_04_2023 and 15_ 04-2023 by the Sth and 6th respondents are iregar, improper and without any power or authority under law, vioration of Articre 19(1xg) of the constitution of lnd ia

¶19

,^..a . r'.

¶20

IAN O:2 OF 2023

¶21

Petition under^{Se rction15'1 CPC prayingthat in the circumstances statedin} the affidavit^{filed in supcort of the petition,the High Court may be pleased to stay} all further^{proceedingsin 68 caseNo} CS3/53/2023,^{dated -5-2023pending} before second^{resPond,-'nt.}

¶22

IA NO :1 OF 2023

¶23

Petitionunders()ctionl5lcPCprayingthatinthecircumstancesstatedin the affidavit^{filed in support of the petition, the High court may be pleased} Respondentstoreleasr:theseizedstocksof320QuintalsofRicetothepetitioner under Cover of^{panchanamadated 14-04-2023and 15-04-2023 by the 5 and6th} respondents.

¶24

Counsel for the^{Petitic'ner : SRI SOMAVARAPUSATYANARAYANA}

¶25

Counsel for the^{Respc'ndents:ASST.GP FOR CIVIL SUPPLIES}

¶26

The Court made^{the fc'llowing:ORDER}

;

t'I I I

; ;,.il ! it t:II

THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE K.SARATH

¶33

WRIT PETITION No.14772 OF 2o23

¶34

ORDER:

¶35

This Writ Petition is fiied, under Article 226^{of lt:e}

¶36

Constitution of India, sceking the following^relief:

¶37

"...to issue an appropriate^wrll., order^{or direction morc} particularly one in the nature of WRIT OIr MANDAMUS declare the seizure of stocks of^{32O cluintalsof rice of} the petitioner under cover of^{pancltanamadated} 14.O4.2023 and 15.04.2023 by the^{respondentNos.S} and 6 are illega1, improper^and without^{any power or} authority under Iaw, violation^{of Article19(1)(g)of the} Constitution of India and Pass..."

¶38

Heard learned counsel for the petitioner,^learned Assistant Government Pleader for Civil^{Suppliesfor the} respondents and peruscd^{the entire material on record,}

¶39

Today, when the matl.er is^{taken up for hearing,} learned Assistant Government^{Pieader for Civil Supplies for} the respondents submits that^{alter filing this writ petition,} proceedings under Section 6-A of the^Essential Commodities Act, 1955, was disposed on^{15.07'2023.In} view of the same, the cause in^{the u'r'it petitiondoesnot} survlve.

¶40

SK.J W.P.No.l4772 OF²⁰²³

¶41

Recordirrg the^{submissionsmade bylearned} Assistant Gor ernment^{Pleader for Civil Supplies, the writ} petition is clismissed^{as infructuous' Theresha-ll be no}

¶42

order as to^{co sts.}

¶43

Miscellaneous^{petitions pending,if any, sha1l stand}

¶44

ciosed.

¶45

sD'-P^{PADMAN+BRE,ETP^X}

¶46

/,TRUE^COPY'/ SECTIONDOFFTCER

¶47

To, MAVARAPU^{SATYANARAYANA'Advocate tOPUCl}

¶48

1 One^{CC to SRI {iO} FOR^{CIVIL SUPPLIES'High Court for the State of}

¶49

2 +XB.f,t', ib,j+i

¶50

J Two^{CD CoPies}

¶51

BSK

¶52

L \

¶53

HIGH COURT

¶54

DATED:1310912024

¶55

t,,
:?
,J, ,,
s
s<br>o
<br>4..-
,:l
c iJtl$ t-

¶56

ORDER

¶57

WP.No.14772'ct²⁰²³

¶58

DISMISSING^{THE WRIT PETITION} WITHOUT^GOSTS \

Karan Patil v. The State of Telangana

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Karan Patil 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

Smt. Muthumulla Maha Siva Laxmi Vs The State of Telangana

Baddam Lakshma Reddy, Vs The State of Telangana, rep. by its Principal Secretary

Manikanta Agro Tech., Vs The State of Telangana, Agricultural Marketing Department

Puli Venkatesham Vs Telangana State Election Commission Represented by its Secretary

T.Shankar Singh, S/o T.Bala Singh, Vs The State of Telangana

Dr.Suri Sreemathi,Seethafalmandi,Secunderabad Vs the Ap Cooperative Tribunal, and 6 Others