Disposed

B. Ramulu v. the State of Telegana

Telangana HC24 Sept 2024WP/44722/2017

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court, on a writ petition challenging demand notices for cattle market fees levied against the petitioner, directed the respondent to consider the petitioner's representations and pass a reasoned order in strict accordance with law and the Telangana Panchayat Raj Act.

What did the court decide?

Directed the respondent to consider the petitioner's representations and pass a reasoned order strictly in accordance with law and the telangana Panchayat Raj Act.

B. Ramulu Vs the State of Telegana — Landlord and Tenant | Telangana HC (2024)

¶1

[^32e61

¶2

:i i1

¶3

HIGH COURT^{FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA} AT HYDERABAD (SPecial Original^{Jurisdiction)}

¶4

TUESDAY ,THE^{TWENTY FOURTH DAY OF SEPTEIVIBER} TWO THOUSAND^{AND TWENTY FOUR}

¶5

PRESENT

¶6

THE HONOURABLE^{SRI JUSTICE C.V. BHASKARREDDY}

¶7

WRIT PETITIO^{N NO:214722 0F 2017}

¶8

Between:

¶9

B. Ramulu, S/o.^{Dhallu, Age 31 years, Occ Contractor' R/o} . KomminePalli Village, Kamepally^{Mandal, Khammam utstrtct'} ...PETITIONER

¶10

AND

¶11

1 The State Of^{Telegana, represented by its Principal . Secretary to the} p'ji"nl'viin Ra1 olpirtment, Secretariat^{B J ild ing s' H} vdera^bad 2 rhe crampanchavath,^{dffi"N"ei;il' -iep-ieE"i''t"o n" its Panchavath} U;,";;:'ft;ri"6iiiii^{vlil;U K;ffi.darrv-rfia-noai' knammamDistrict}

¶12

...RESPONDENTS

¶13

Petition under^{Article226 of the Constitution of lndiapraying that in the} circumstances^{statedin the affidavit filed therewith' the High Court may be} pleased to issue^{an order or direction more particularlyonein the natureof writ} ofmandamusoranyotherappropriatewritdeclaringtheactionoftherespondent no.2 in not^{passing any orders on the representationfiled by the petitionerdated} 27 -'11-2017 and^{16-12-2017consideringthe request of the petitioner for} exempting the^{paymentof the remaining installmentsamount in running Sri} KrishnaprasadCattleMarketinKomminepalliVillageofKamepallyMandalof KhammamDistrictandissuingthenoticestothepetitionerdaled2S-11-2017and 15-12-2017^demandingto pay the remaining^{lnstallmentsasum of} without^{looking into the fact that there is no} Rs.87,77,000/-^{ill31-12-2017} businessinthesaidcattlemarketaswasearlier,isnothingbutarbitrary,illegal, null and^{voidand violativeof principles of natural justice and also violativeof} Articles,l4,lgand2loftheconstitutionoflndiaandalsotheprovisionsofthe A.P. Panchayath^{Raj Act Consequently' direct the respondentno 2 not to disturb} the services^{of the petitionertill the auction period i e 31-3-2018in runningthe} Sri Krishnaprasad^{Cattle Market in KomminepalliVillage of Kamepally Mandalof}

¶14

Khammam District by considering the representations of the petitioner dated 27 - 11-2017 and 16-12-2017

¶15

lA NO: 1 OF 2017

¶16

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 direct the respondent no.2 to consider the representations submitted by the petitioner, dated 27-11-2017 and 16-12-2017 thereby not to disturb the services of the petitioner in running the Sri Krishnaprasad catile Market in Komminepalli Village of Kamepally Mandal of Khammam District

¶17

Counsel for the Petitioner: SRl. K. VENUMADHAV

¶18

Counsel forthe Respondent No.1: Gp FOR PANCHAYAT RAJ RURAL DEVELOPMENT

¶19

Counsel for the Respondent No.2: SRI G. NARENDER REDDY, SC

¶20

The Court made the following: ORDER

'1,-.<

,'.1

?HE HON,BLE SRI JUSTICE C. V. BHASI(AR REDDY TIoN IVo.44722 of20,t7

¶25

ORDER:

¶26

This Writ petition, under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, is filed by the petitione J --^" PuLrlroner seeking the following relief:

¶27

".... !o lssr_re ak order or dir-^t:^- _- nature of at o1 more particularlg one in the ^il-'.directton uPPropnate urit a.cbans ;"";:ri;:,;""1".yus^{or ana other app} ans orders on ,n !'n' "'o;;';";; d.ated.27. jt.2orr",;l:i;:':":::".iy"in*r!"ff llX!, insnum"nt"'iiro;;:T:":n^{the pasment of the} remaining tn running sri Krishnonrasad Cortle Market in Komminet xno^)' ^' ;;| ;;:"":::'' tssuing ^n:"In"'' the^of notices^Kamepat to^ts the^Mand petitioner^a t' of dated.2'. j 1.2Ot Z of,o 12'2017 remaining irorou*)I^l5' -demanding^{to paa the} t:: s^j .^j 2. 2 ; 1 7 * i, n",,'ij ",,i n" i I.'i"r ;;:*r,, ^f ", #/",, " busrness in the said ccittl.e market * "" ),rlir., is nothing but arbitrary. Illegal. nult and. uoid ora ,iUi)"oS pinciples of natural justice and. also uiolatiue "f Arti"l"; ; ; . I 9 and 2 1 of the Constihttion of India and. also in" p,ui"in" of the A.p. Panchagath Roj Act, Consequentlg direct the respondent no.2 not to di^sturb the seruices if the petitioner, till the ouction period i.e., 3j_3_2o1g in tunning the Sn Krishnaprasad Cattle Market in KomminepaUi vittage, oy Kamepally Mandal, of Khammam District bj consideing the representations of the petitioner d.ated 27.11.2O17 ctnd. 16.12.2017..."

¶28

It is stated that the petitioner has participated in open auction conducted by respondent No.2 for collection of cattle

¶29

-.tr:

¶30

¶31

market^{fee i.e., Sri Krishnaprasad cattle Marketfor the} financial^{year2Ol7-2018i'e'' from O1'04'2017 to 31'03'2018'} It is^{further stated that in the said auction petitionerhas} became^{highest bidderfor an amountof Rs'2'25'40'000/-and} the^{petitioner has paid 1/3rd amount of the said amount i'e''} Rs.75,13,000 l-^{and paid balance amount of Rs'20'00'000/-} towards^{tr'M'D' on 01'04'20 17 and managing the cattle} market.^{It is furtherstated that the Governmentof Telangana} has taken^{up a program for distribution of sheep and as a} result of^{whictrno one is coming to the malket either for} purchasing^{or selling of sheepand as such he sustained heavy} loss and^{he is not in a positionto pay the balance amountas} demartded^{by the respondents'The petitioneralso submitted} representations,^{dated 27'17'2017arlLd 16'12'2017seeking} waiverofthebaianceamountpaidbythepetitioner.The grievance of the^{petitioner is that even after receivingthe said} representations,^{respondentsare insistingto pay the said} amount by issuing^{demandnotices, dated 15'12'2017and} 25.77.2017. Questioning the said^{action, petitioner filed the} present writ petition.

¶32

¶33

I t

¶34

(- 3. This writ petition is pending since 2017 and this Court has not granted any interim orders.

¶35

Learned counsel for the petitioner has fairly submitted that the pending adjudication of the demand notices, the auction for collection of cattle market^{fee was} regularly conducted by respondent No.2 every year and successful bidders are collecting the cattle market^fee

¶36

It submitted by learned Government Pleader appearing for respondent No.1 that except issuance of the demand notices, respondents have not initiated any action and the notices issued by the respondents are barred^by the limitation, as the respondents are not having any right to collect fees payable by the petitioner beyond the^period of three years as prescribed under the provisions of the Limitation Act, 1963.

¶37

In view of the above submissions, this Court, without are expressing any opinion whether the respondents entitled to collect the balance amount payable by the petitioner or whether the amount payable by the petitioner is barred by the limitation, is of the opinion that the ends

¶38

¶39

-;Ff,

¶40

of the justice^.,r,ould be met if the respondents are directed to consider the representations, dated 27 .11.2017 and 16.12.2017 submitted by the petitioner, strictly in accordance lvith law and pass a reasoned order, as per the provisions of Telangana Palchayat Raj Act, 201U and the Rules made thercunder.

¶41

¶42

7 . With the above observations, this Writ Petition is disposed of. There shall be no order as to costs.

¶43

As a sequel thereto, miscellaneous petitions, if any, pending shall stand closed

¶44

sD/- v.^KAyITHA ASSISTANT^REGIFTRAR //TRUE^COPY// sECTtoN &rr,"=*

¶45

To,

¶46

1_ The Principa|^{Secretary to the Panchayath Raj Department, Secretariat} 2 ?Hltd Eei.i.?;t Eei.i.?;t 33E r3i"1i ; r3i"1i ;

¶47

2 ?Hltd Eei.i.?;t Eei.i.?;t 33E r3i"1i ; r3i"1i ; J 4 *,i'*rSi[JFlln 5 3"":t'3',I^{3 31"3 "ll'Jel} ffirp;Hr:$:,ffi^{# ;;} 6 Two CD^CoPies B M LS

HIGH COURT

DATED:2410912024

ORDER

/
1 t ;:1"
, i J(.5 tli) {
\ t
<br>--

¶52

WP.No.44722 of 2017

¶53

DISPOSING OF THE WRIT PETITION WITHOUT COSTS

¶54

B. Ramulu v. the State of Telegana

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

B. Ramulu v. the State of Telegana

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

Smt.a.Manohara Vs The Government of Andhra Pradesh, represented by

Muneerunnisa Begum Vs A.P. Housing Board

Nunavath Ramesh Vs The State of Telangana

M/S Sri Lakshmi Service Station, Vs M/S Indian Oil Corporation Ltd., and 2 Others

Handum Industries Ltd., a Company incorporated under the Vs The Appellate Authority under Section 15 of the Foreign

Gopireddy Ramana Reddy Vs The State of Telangana