Dismissed

Balagoni Sreenuvas Goud v. The state of Telangana

Telangana HC21 Nov 2024WP/32565/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Writ petition filed against state and mining corporation respondents sought writ for violation of business contract regarding sand quarry activity. Petitioner withdrew the petition before the High Court as subject matter was amenable to civil adjudication.

What did the court decide?

Writ petition dismissed as withdrawn. Interim orders vacated and connected applications disposed of.

Balagoni Sreenuvas Goud Vs The state of Telangana — Writ and Judicial Review | Telangana HC (2024)

t i i I

[^340s ]

IN THE HIGH COURT^{FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANAAT HYDERABAD} (SPecial Original Jurisdiction)

¶5

THURSDAY, THE^{TWENTY FIRSTDAYOF NOVEMBER} TWO THOUSAND^{AND TWENTYFOUR}

¶6

PRESENT

¶7

THE HONOURABLE^{JUSTICEMOUSHUMTBHATTACHARYA}

¶8

WRIT PETITION^N O:3^{25650F 2024}

¶9

Between:

¶10

Balaooni sreenuvas^{Goud, s/o Narsimha Goud,aged about42. years, occ'} ffi.:#$^"R6'Fi;i N.."50r,^{cN Residencv, Balaii Nagar' Havat Nagar'Ransa} Redd, District

¶11

...PETrroNER

¶12

AND

¶13

1 The state of Telangana,^{rep by its Prrncipal secretaryl\ilines' lndustries} commerce depai'tment^{SecretariatHyderabad} Telanoana Mineral^{Developmentcorporation Limited (TGIUDCL).rep} -by^its Lt";;;X-#Di";"i"i, vririri:rlSind^{Redch,H.No 6-2-e154th floor' Rear Block'} rf MWSSB Premises,^{Khairathabad, Hyderabad'}

¶14

n Telanoana Mineral^{Developmentcorporation Limited (TGI/DCL), Repby its} piojecibtricui, tron euitoihg. Eturunigaram, Mulugu^District'

¶15

4 Sri Sammakka^{SarakkaTribal lsuka and Morram.Quarv LabourContract} F;,;;;;;-^'s;h;;aii; sa;;;i;;^{s;"s,; Ltd,Videits RegdSocietv'} iticirfiLcnc?iinozttzt,a.i"^{ov-itJ piesident, Thorem Sreenuvas,S/o} Sammaiah

¶16

...RESPONDENTS

¶17

Petition under^{Article226 of the Constitutionof lndia praying that in the} circumstances^{stated in the affidavit filed therewith' the High Court may be} pleasedtoissueWritorderordirectionmoreparticularlyoneinthenatureofwrit -^{- of .mandamus declaringthe -inaction,9ll!9-.Lq!.Pondent-No'-2-and-and3jn} :--:#-:.-::-- -.. - ''-* '='+-.#^=:=-; - ,,^.. - .----;; -. -r. -rr,.r1-i-.^{,'-- '"} -'considering tne^{represliiJiio"oi-'tfir"in-ioii.rr OrteO-f+. 10.2024 to stoiilhe*salrt} quarryattvlallu(Mamidigudem)lr/lmangapetamandal'Mulugudistrictforviolating thebusinesscontractdated5.5.2024asarbitraryandillegalandconsequentlyto directtherespondentstoconsidertherepresentationdatedl4.l0.2024.

¶18

lA NO: 1 OF 2024

¶19

Petition under section 151 cpc praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit fired in support of the petition, the High court ma,/ be preased to direct the respondernts 2 and 3 to consider the representation dated 14.10.2024 and arso the regar notice dated 0g.10.2024 to stop sand quarry at rvrarur (Mamdigudem ) lvlangapeta ma ndal, tvlulugu district.

¶20

Counsel for the petitioner : SRI GUDI MADHUSUDHAN REDDy counsel for the Respondents No.1to3 : Gp FoR MrNES AND GEoLoGy

¶21

Counsel for the Respondents No.4 :

¶22

The Court made the following: ORDER

¶23

F--

¶24

".'*.1!._-_f"li,__er!t&&

¶25

THE HON'BLE ..IUSTICE MOUSHUMI BHATTACHARYA

¶26

WRIT PETITION No.3 2s65 0F 2024

¶27

Mr. Gudi Madhusudhan Reddy, learned counsel for the petitioner

¶28

ORDER:

¶29

Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner seeks to withdraw the writ petition on the ground that the subject matter rs amenable for civil adjudication

¶30

W.P.No.3256S of 2024 is accordingly dismissed as withdrawn. Interim orders, if any, shall stand vacated and all connected applications are disposed of. There shall be no order as to costs.

¶31

SD/.V.KAVITHA ASSISTANT REGISTRA

//TRUE COPY//

CTION OFFICER

To,

One CC to SRI GUDI MADHUSUDHAN REDDY, Advocate. [OPUC]

¶36

fwo CCs to GP FOR IVINES AND GEOLOGY, High Court^{for the State of} Telangana. [OUT]

¶37

Two CD Copies.

BSK

GJP

HIGH COURT

DATED:21 11112024

ORDER

WP.No.32565 of 2024

,, ti g STA 1^i-
/.
,) CI3IEB W[
t
D€spatrj

¶45

DISMISSING THE WRIT PETITION AS WITHDRAWN WITHOUT COSTS

¶46

,o>5

Balagoni Sreenuvas Goud v. The state of Telangana

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Balagoni Sreenuvas Goud v. The state of Telangana

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

M/s. Dr. Reddys Laboratories Ltd, Vs State of Telangana, Represented by its Principal

Sri. Dillikar Vinesh Kumar Vs The Union of India

Bellamkonda Venkateswar Rao, Mancherial Dist. Vs the State of Ts., Mines.I, Hyd.,and 6 Otrs.

Mohammed Anwar Vs The State of Telangana, Rep. by its Principal Secretary

Mukteshwara Adivasi Mahilalsuka Quarry Labour Contract Vs State of Telangana

M/s. Iris Meditech Vs The State of Telangana