Disposed

Maruthi Industries v. The State of Telangana

Telangana HC25 Jan 2024WP/1945/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This writ petition under Article 226 prayed for a writ of mandamus declaring the respondents' attempt to seize the petitioner's rice mill illegal and arbitrary, while seeking a direction to grant time for delivering CMR rice. The court, without going into merits, directed the respondents to dispose of the petitioner's representation within two weeks.

What did the court decide?

Directed respondents to dispose of petitioner's representation dated 18.01.2024 within two weeks of receipt of the order.

Maruthi Industries Vs The State of Telangana — Public Procurement and Tenders | Telangana HC (2024)

¶1

[³³⁰² ]

¶2

HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD

¶3

(Special Original Jurisdiction)

¶4

THURSDAY, THE TWENTY FIFTH DAY QF JANUARY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FOUR

¶5

PRESENT

¶6

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE K, SARATH

¶7

WRIT PETITION NO: 1945 OF 2024

¶8

Between:

¶9

It/aruthi lndustries, situated at H.No.5-2-68, Main Road, Kesamudram of Mahabubabad District. Rep by its proprietor Mekala Rajitha Wo. Veeranna Aged about 39 years, R/o.H.No.6-57l19/4, Kesamudram Village and Mandal, lVlahabubabad District.

¶10

...PETITIONER

¶11

AND

¶12

1 The State of Telangana, Rep. by its Principal Secretary, Civil Supplies department, Secretariat, Hyderabad.'

¶13

2 The State Civil Supplies Corporation Limited, Rep by its Managing Director and Vice Chairman, Somajiguda, Hyderabad

¶14

3 The District Collector, Mahabubabad, Mahabubabad District

¶15

4 The Additional District Collector and Ex- officio Executive Director, Telangana State Civil Supplies Corporation Limited Mahabubabad, Mahabubabad District.

¶16

The District Civil Supply Officer, Mahabubabad, Mahabubabad District.

¶17

...RESPONDENTS

¶18

Petition under Article 226 of lhe Gonstitution of lndia praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed therewith, the High Court may be pleased to issue writ, order, direction more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus declaring the action of respondent authorities, particularly the respondents No. 3 to 5 trying to seized the petltioner rice mill and premises of the lndustry pending disposal of Petitioner's representation dated 18.01.2024 as illegal arbitrary against the principles of natural^justice, Consequently direct the respondent No.4 to grant time for deliver the CMR rice by considering the petitioners representation dated 18.01.2024, pending disposal of the writ petition.

¶19

lA NO: 1 OF 2024

¶20

Petition under Serction 1 51 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 respondent N,r.4 to^grant time for deliver the CMR rice by considering the petitioner's representation dated 18.01 .2024^pending disposal of the writ petition.

¶21

Counsel for the Petitioner: SRI K.RAMA KRISHNA

¶22

Counsel for the Respondent No.1, 3, 4 & 5: GP FOR CIVIL SUPPLIES

¶23

Counsel for the Respondent No.2: SRI CHALAKANI VENKAT YADAV, SC FOR SCSCL

¶24

The Court made the follr:rwing: ORDER

¶25

I t,

¶26

¶27

THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE K.SARATH WRIT PETITION No.1945 of 2o24

¶28

ORDER:

¶29

This writ petition is filed under Article 226 of Constitution of India for the following reliel

¶30

"... to issue writ, order, direction more partiatlarlg one in tle nature of Writ of Mandamus declaing the action of respondent authoittes particularlg the respondents No.3 to 5 trying to seized the petitioner rice mill and premises of the Industry pending disposal of Petitioners representation dated 18.01.2024 os illegal, arbitrary against the pinciples of natural justice Consequently direct the resdpoent No.4 to grant time for deliuer the CMR rice by ansidering tLLe petitioner's representation dated 18.O1.2024..."

¶31

Heard learned Counsel appearing for the

¶32

petitioner, the learned Government Pleader for Civil Supplies for the respondent Nos. 1,3,4 and 5 and Sri Chalakani Venkat Yadav, learned Standing Counsel

¶33

appearing for the respondent No.2.

¶34

¶35

¶36

The rnain contention of the petitioner is that the respondent l\os.3 to 5 have been trying to seLe the petitioner's rice mill and premises of the industry without considering the representation dated 18.01.2024 filed by the petitioner is illega-l and arbitrary and requested to allow the writ petition.

¶37

After hearing both sides and perusing the material on record, without going into merits of the case, this Writ petition 1S disposed of directing the respondents to dispose of the representation dated La.Ol.2O24 filed by the petitioner within two (O2) weeks from the date of receipt of copy of this Order. There shall be no order as to costs.

¶38

Miscellaneous applications pending, if any, shall

¶39

stand closed.

¶40

SDI.AV.S;FRTSAD ASSISTANT REGISTRAR //TRUE^COPY// ),' SECTION^OFFICER

¶41

To. 'l The Principal Secretary' Civil Supplies department' Secretariat' Hyderabad'^Stateof 2. Telangana.The Managing^{Drrector and Vice Chairman' State Civil Supplies CorporationLimited'} Somaiiguda,^HYderabad s ih"'D';tii;t'coilector,^{Mahabubabad' Mahabubabad District} 4. The^{Additionaroi"tr,"t EoTrlliJi anOEx- onicioExecutiveDirector' Telangana State civil} " il;il;;;rP",-,t'on r'''i"J vr'habubabad' Mahabubabad^District 5 The District^{Civit suppry Otn;r'Mahabubabad'-Mah€bubabad District} E cj";"C;t;'sni^{r nni'rA KRISHNA' AdvocatetoP-u-q-} 7, ONC^{CCtO SRI CHALAIGNTVENXNTYNOEV' SC FOR SCSCL IOPUCI} 8. Two ccs^{to GPFoR cviL dupplres'HrghCourt ror tne State ot Telingana at Hyderabad} IOUT} \ g tiro co coPies:-\2\2 BSR

HIGH COURT

DATED: 25101t2024

ORDER

WP.No.1945 of 2024

l riE SIA 16,
t
o
(.) 0 2 FEB 2[2{
* Dg.9PATCt{ *

¶47

DISPOSING OF THE WRIT PETITION, WITHOUT COSTS

Maruthi Industries v. The State of Telangana

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Maruthi Industries 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

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Kyasa Aparna Vs The State of Telangana

S.K.Hashim Vs The State of Telangana

Rgp Properties Pvt.Ltd Vs Gram panchayat, Manikonda Jagir

F. T. F. Traders Vs The State of Telangana

Pasham Sanjay Babu Vs The Government of Andhra Pradesh

Ameena Begum (Died per LRs petitioners 2-7 AND9-12 Vs The Collector, Ranga Reddy District,Hyderabad