Disposal of a writ petition for non-prosecution/default as the petitioner failed to appear or file representation on the appointed date.
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.
[3302 ]
HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction)
MONDAY, THE EIGHTH DAY OF JANUARY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FOUR
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE SRl JUSTICE K. SARATH
WRIT PETITION NO: 32981 OF 2013
Between:
P.q9Orpqt!Narsimulu,S/o. B.Shivaiah,aged 48 years, Occ Agricutture, Rl/o. H.No.4-30, Roopkhanpet Village, Parigi Mandal, Ranga Reddy District.
...PETITIONER
AND
...RESPONDENTS
Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of lndia praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed therewith, the High Court may be pleased to issue nature of writ of Mandamus declaring the action of the Respondent No.1 in passing stay order unilaterally against the Petitioner regarding the permission of the construction accorded to the Petitioner by the Respondent No.3 vide B.P.P./BP/No.4 1t2013-14, Daled.24-5-2}13 through an impugned Order vide Pro.No.646/2013-B 1(Pts) D1.23-8-2013 without assigning any reasons further directing the Respondent No.3 to stop the construction raised by the Petitioner in his above said land, with Police assistance U/Sec.'139 of A.P.P.R.Act, 1994, as being illegal, arbitrary and is in violation of Article 14 and 2'l of the constitution of lndia apart from being in negation of principles of naturaljustice and consequently set aside the same.
I.A. NO: 1 OF 2013(WPMP. NO :41038 OF 2013)
Petition under section 151 cpc praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High court may be preased to suspend the operation of the Order vide pro. No.646/2013_B 1(pts) Dated.23.8.2013 of the Respondent No. r with a direction not to interfere any of the Respondents wlth the construction activity of the petitioner in terms of 'Sanctioned Plan' pending disposal of the above Writ petition.
Counsel for the Petitioner: SRt G.VENKATA REDDY (NOT PRESENT)
Counsel for the Respondent No.1, 2 & 4: Gp FOR PANCHAYAT RAJ
Counsel for the Respondent No.3: SRI p.RAGHAVENDER REDDY, SC FOR GRAM PANCHAYAT
The Court made the following: ORDER
THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE K.SARATH
WRIT PETITION No.32981 of 2013
ORDER:
This petition is coming for hearing since 2013. On 18.12.2023, when the matter was called, there wasno representation on beha,lf of the petitioner, and therefore the matter was directed to be listed today underthe caption "for Dismissal". Even today, when thematteris called, there is no representation on behalf of the petitioner. It seems that the petitioner is not interested to prosecute this case.
SD/. V. HARIPRASAD ASSISTANT GIS
//TRUECOPY//
SECTIONOFFICER
To,
BSR GJP N)/
HIGH COURT
DATED: 0810112024
ORDER
fE L4
o
o,
.$
t
\e a
o
u-
s<br>l,riH *
WP.No.32981 of 2013
DISMISSING THE WRIT PETITION
FOR NON-PROSECUTION/DEFAU LT,
WITHOUT COSTS
xa
Narsimulu
District Panchayat Officer, Ranga Reddy District
K. Sarath
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
