Disposed

G. Venkat Reddy v. The State of Telangana

Telangana HC12 Sept 2024WP/25286/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Petitioner sought correction of the floor rate counting 312 operated KMs instead of 320 KM per day for his TSRTC contract bus on the Nalgonda-Gurrampode-Chandur-Hyderabad route, with payment accordingly. The writ petition was disposed of directing the Regional Manager to decide his pending representations within two weeks.

What did the court decide?

Respondent No.2 directed to consider petitioner's representations dated 17.01.2024 and 27.07.2024 within two weeks, pass appropriate orders in accordance with law and communicate the decision.

G. Venkat Reddy Vs The State of Telangana — Service and Employment | Telangana HC (2024)

¶1

132521

¶2

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

¶3

THURSDAY,THE TWELFTH DAY OF SEPTEIVBER TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FOUR

¶4

PRESENT

¶5

THE HONOURABLE MRS JUSTICE SUREPALLI NANDA

¶6

WRIT PETITION NO: 25286 OF 2024

¶7

Between:

¶8

G. VENKAT REDDY, S/o Narayana reddy, Aged about 69 years, Business R/o H.No.B-1-763 RTC Colony, Nalgonda, Nalgonda District T.S

¶9

...PETITIONER

¶10

AND

¶11

1 The Telangana State Road Transport Corporation, Rep. by its Managing Director, Bus Bhavan, Musheerabad, T.S.

¶12

2 The Regional Manager, TSRTC, Nalgonda Region, at Nalgonda, T.S.

¶13

r) The State of Telangana, Rep. by its Principal Secretary, Transport Department, Secretariat, Hyderabad, T.S

¶14

...RESPONDENTS

¶15

Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed therewith, the High Court may be pleased to issue a writ or order or direction more particularly one in the nature of writ of mandamus declaring that the action of the 2nd herein in not correcting the floor rate counting as 312 operated Kilo Meters instead of 320 KM per day to the petitioners bus No. TS05 UB 9695 for the route Nalgonda - Gurrampode - Chandur - Hyderabad is bad, arbitrary and illegal and consequently direct the respondents to pay the floor rate by taking into account of 312 operated KMs instead of 320 KMs per day for the above said route by considering the petitioners representations dt 27 I 7 I 2024 and 17 I 1 12024

¶16

Counsel for the Petitioner: SRl. P VENKATESWAR RAO

¶17

Counsel for the Respondent Nos.1&2: SRI GADDAM SRINIVAS (SC FOR TSRTC)

¶18

Counsel for the Respondent No.3: AGP FOR TRANSPORT

¶19

The Court made the following: ORDER

¶20

HON'BLE MRS JUSTICE SUREPALLI NANDA

¶21

WRIT PETITION No.25286 OF 2024

¶22

ORDER:

¶23

Heard Sri P. Venkateshwer Rao, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner, Sri Gaddam Srinivas, learned Standing Counsel for TSRTC, appearing on behalf of respondent Nos.1 and 2, and learned Assistant Government Pleader for Transport, appearing on behalf of respondent No.3.

¶24

The petationer approached the Court seeking prayer as under:

¶25

"...to issue a writ or order or direction more particularly one in the nature of writ of Mandamus declaring that the action of the 2nd respondent herein in not correcting the floor rate counting as 312 operated Kilo Meters lnstead of 320 KM per day to the petitioner's bus No. TS 05 UB 9695 for the route Nalgonda- Gurrampode - Chandur - Hyderabad is bad, arbitrary and illegal and consequently direct the respondents to pay the floor rate by taking into account of 312 operated KM's instead of 320 KM's per day for the above said route by considering the petitioner's representations dated 27 -7 -2024 and 17 -t-2O24 and pass such other order or orders as this Hon'ble Court deems fit and proper".

¶26

¶27

s.N., J W.P._252aG ot 2024

¶28

It is represented by the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner and learned Standing Counsel appearing on behalf of respondent No.3 that the subject issue in the present writ petition is squarely covered by .the order of this Court dated 25.07.2024^passed in W.P. No.19900 of 2024 and hence, the present writ^petition could be disposed of in terms of the order of this Court dated 25.07.2024^passed in^W.P. No.19900 of 2O24.

¶29

Learned Standing Counsel appearing on behalf of respondent Nos. 1 and 2 submits that the writ^petition could be disposed of directing the respondent No.2 to^considerthe petitioner's representations dated 27.07.2024 and 17-OI-2024 within a reasonable period.

¶30

Taking into consideration the facts^and circumstances of the case and the submissions made by the learned Standing Counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent Nos.1 & 2, the respondent No.2 is directed to consider the petitioner's representations^dated L7.OL.2O24 and 27.07.2O24 within a^period of two⁽²⁾ weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order^and pass appropriate orders, in accordance to law and communicate the decision to the^petitioner.

'''-\

S.N., J w.P. 252a6 of 2024

¶35

Accordingly, the writ^petition is^disposedof

¶36

However, there shall be no order^as to^costs.

¶37

Miscellaneous^petitions, if any,^pending in^{this Writ}

¶38

Petition, shall stand closed.

SD/. K.^AMMAJI

ASSISTANTiREGISTRAR

//TRUE^COPY/I

secrbiorrrcen

to'',. ,n" Managing^{Director'TSRTC' Bus Bhavan' Musheerabad'T S'} 2. The^{Regional Manager'TSRTC' Nalgonda Region' at Nalgonda' T.S'} secretary'^rranspott 3. rhe^state "t 1"''"9?X3i, T,"rt"?XJ:=o:+T'o' DePartment,^Secret:

¶44

One^{CC to SRI'P VENKATESWARRAO Advocate [OPUC]}

¶45

¶46

one^{CC to SRI GADDAM SRINIVAS (SC FOR TSRTC) [oPUC]}

¶47

6 Two CCs to^{GP for Transport' High Court for the State of Telanganaat} HYderabad [OUT]

¶48

Two^{CD CoPies} KKS ts vy

¶49

HIGH COURT

¶50

DATED:1210912024

¶51

1 a.: S:IAI t4
{ .1
t
1 t 0E[ zt]/l
)r
:l'
*
t
t) PA-f

¶52

ORDER

¶53

WP.No.25286 of 2024

¶54

DISPOSING OF THE WRIT PETITION WITHOUT COSTS

¶55

(Oils
\0

G. Venkat Reddy v. The State of Telangana

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

G. Venkat Reddy 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

Vadla Jeetha Chary Vs The State of Telangana represented by its Secretary

Sri Kandregula Naga Venkatesh Vs The State of Telangana

Mr. Shaik Azhar Vs The Andhra Pradesh State Finance Corporation

Gade Venkata Narsamma Vs The State of Telangana

Manasarawor Ispat India Pvt., Ltd., (S.C.MBN699) Vs The Telangana State, Tansco

M.Ajay and 19 Others, Vs Prl.Secy.. Social Welafare Dept., Hyd., and 6 Others