The Supreme Court of Telangana disposed of Writ Petition No. 222 of 2010 without passing orders on the merits, noting that further action was unnecessary due to an existing interim order granted on 07.09.2010.
No substantive relief granted; petition disposed of with an order stating that no further orders were required.
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)
MONDAY, THE EIGHTEENTH DAY OF MARCH TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FOUR
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE NAGESHBHEEMAPAKA
WRIT PETITION NO: 222ffi OF 2010
Between:
...RESPONDENTS
Petition under Articre 226 0f 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, order or direction more particurarry one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus decraring the action of the respondents in deducitng 1% of the amount out of the Birs payabre in favour of the petitioners towards cess on rabour, on materiar varue without assessing and determinrng the riabirity of the petitioners for payment of cess on Labour by taking into consideration the nature of the work awarded in favour of the petitioners as iregar and arbitrary and contrary to the The Buildings and other construction works ( Reguration of Emproyment and Conditions of Service ) Act 1996 and the cess act of 1996.
l.A. NO: 1 OF 2010(WpMp. NO: 28279 OF 20101 Petition 'nde'.s."tion 15'rEc prrffihatrn the circumstances stated in the affidavit fired in support of the petition, the High court may be preased to direct the respondents to pay the amounts payable under the bills to the petitioners without deducting Labour cess of 10/o from the birs, payabre to the petitioners, pending disposal of the above writ petition.
Counsel for the petitioners: SRI A.PRABHAKAR RAO counser for the Resoondents: sRr_zAKrR nr_r dniriisn, sc FoR TSN'D.L The Court made the'following: ORDER
I i l I
IHE HONOURABI.E SRI JUSIICE NAGESH BHEEMAPAKA
WRIT P tTt N o 222 OF 10
ORDER:
Todoy, when the motier is token up for heoring, leorned counsel for the petitioners submitted thot in view of the interim order gronled by this Court on 07.O9.2OlO in W.p.M.p.N o.2gZ79 of 2010, no further orders qre required to be possed in this writ petition.
2 Recording the obove submission, this Writ pefition is disposed of. There sholl be no order qs to costs.
Miscelloneous petitions, if ony, pending in this writ
petition sholl stqnd closed.
SD/. T. VIJAY KUMAR ASSISTANT REGIS R //TRUE COPYII
To
SECTION OFFICER
PSK GJP
HIGH COURT
DATED:1810312024
ORDER
WP.No.2220O of 2010
t' _)\11|-lE ,4 /4
J*
(1
::.
t 1 tLii 2024
o:t
1''spar ctrf
DISPOSING OF THE WRIT PETITION WITHOUT COSTS.
@t"qt*
Quv
3 issues framed by the court
Whether the High Court should issue interim relief pending the disposal of the main petition.
Whether an existing interim order negates the need for further substantive orders.
Whether the court should dispose of the writ petition in the absence of further submission.
2 provisions across 2 enactments
Padithala Rajeshwar Rao
Chief General Manager, A.P. N.P. D.C.L.
Nagesh Bheemapaka
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
