Dismissed

Bandaru Mayur Reddy v. the State of Telangana

Telangana HC3 Oct 2024WP/6176/2018

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Telangana dismissed Writ Petition No. 6176 of 2018 filed by Bandaru Mayur Reddy against Panchayat and State authorities sought to quash an order cancelling permissions for structures. The petition was dismissed for non-prosecution as the petitioner failed to appear in court for multiple hearings.

What did the court decide?

The Writ Petition No. 6176 of 2018 is dismissed for non-prosecution/default. Pending miscellaneous applications are closed.

Bandaru Mayur Reddy Vs the State of Telangana — Writ and Judicial Review | Telangana HC (2024)

¶1

[³³⁰² J

¶2

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

¶3

THURSDAY, THE THIRD DAY OF OCTOBER TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FOUR

¶4

PRESENT

¶5

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE K. SARATH

¶6

WRIT PETITION NO: 517 6 0F 2018

¶7

Between:

¶8

BANDARU MAYUR_REDDY, s/o_Ram Reddy Aged about 40 years, occup. private employee., Reptd. by^his G.p.A.,.Mr. 6. Kiishna neddy, Slo. Vaoiagirt Reddy, Aged^6'l years,...Occup., agriculture,R/o. H.No.'S_2BOI1t G^"A, Rantnanagar, Choutuppal (V) and Mandal, yadadri Bhavanagir Dist.

¶9

...PETITIONER

¶10

AND

¶11

'1. THE STATE OFTELANGANA, Repts by its principte Secretary ( panchayat Raj) Secretariat, Tank bund Road , Hydeiabad

¶12

THE District Collector, Yadadri Bhavangiri District,BHONGIR. Telangana.

¶13

Planning officer, Hyderabad Metropolitan Development Authoritv Ghatkesar Zone, District Commercial Complex Tarnaka, HyDERABAD_S00 007.

¶14

The Panchayat .1ecretary, Office of Grampanchayat, Choutuppal village and Mandal, Yadadri Bhavanariri District.

¶15

...RESPONDENTS

¶16

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 an appropriate Writ, Order or Directions and preferably one in the nature of WRIT OF CERTIORARI for the records pertaining to the Order passed by the respt.No.4 in file No. 6/ 2018 / GP Choutuppat dated 12-02-ZO1B in cancelling permissions and consequential notice dated 13-2-2018 in file No.7l2018lGP. Choutuppal to pull down the structures and quash the same as illegal, void and against the principles of natural justice.

¶17

, IAN O:^{1 OF 2018}

¶18

Petition under^{Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstancesstated} in the affidavit^{filed in s;upportof the petition'the High Court may be pleasedto} suspend^{the operationof of the said order passed by the 4th respondent in file} No.6/2018/GPChoutuppaldated12-02-20lSincancellingpermissionsand consequent^{notice dated 13-2-2018in file No 7/ 2O1Bt GP Choutuppal' to pull} down the structures

¶19

IA NO: 2^0F20'.18

¶20

Between:

¶21

ThePanchavatsecretary,officeofGrampanchayat,choutuppalvillageand Mandal, Yad'adri^{Bhavangiri District'}

¶22

...PETITIONER

¶23

AND

¶24

1 BANDARU^{MAYUR REDDY,s/o Ram nqUOy} LSg$^{about 40 vears' occup.} private emptoyee Reptd.^{i,il'r.,ii ci;.4 ir/|i-6. riisr,n, Reddvs/o. Yadfagiri} H:*'J,.[{i{n:^{;iirr""r"ng:i,'IJ:#l?ins}"?n'1,180/1/GA}

¶25

2 THE STATE^{OF TELANGANA, Repts.byits Principle Secretary( Panchayat} Raj) Secretariat,^{Tank bund Road, HyderaDao}

¶26

THE District^{Collector, Yadadri BhavangiriDistrict} 'BHONGlR^Telangana'

¶27

J ment Authc,ritY^Ghatkesar

¶28

4 Planning Officer.^{Hyderabad Metropolitan DevePp} zone. b"ftiict Commercial^{ComplexTarnaka, HYDE} RABAD-500^007.

¶29

...RESPONDENTS

¶30

Petition under^{Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstancesstated} in the affidavit^{filed in support of the petition, the High court may be pleased to} dismisstheaboveWritPetitionbyvacatingtheinterimorderdated2T.02.2olS passedinlANo^{1of :2018inWPNo 6176of2018'}

¶31

lA NO: 3 oF²⁰¹⁸

¶32

Between:

¶33

Planning Office',^{Hyderabad Metropolitan DeveloomentAuthorityGhatkesar} Zone, District commJ[ili6inibr"iljtnir"'^{HYDERABAD-500007'}

¶34

...PETITIONER

¶35

AND

¶36

1 BANDARU^{MAYUR REDDY,sio Ram} BgOOy 4pg9^{about 40 vears'occup} ;fi;;t"J#pil;;t",^{R+td iv'h"i;t.F-4., ivti-6' riisr'naReddv' S/o Yadragiri}

¶37

Reddy, Aged 61 years, Occup., agriculture, R/o. H.No. 5-28Ol1l G A, Rantnanagar, Choutuppal (V) and Mandal, Yadadri Bhavanagir Dist.

¶38

THE STATE OF TELANGANA, Repts by its Principle Secretary⁽ Panchayat Raj) Secretariat, Tank bund Road , Hyderabad

¶39

The Diskict Collector, Yadadri Bhavangiri District ,BHONGIR. Telangana.

¶40

The Panchayat Secretary, Office of Grampanchayat, Choutuppal village and Mandal, Yadadri Bhavangiri District.

¶41

...RESPONDENTS

¶42

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^pleased to vacate the interim orders granted on 27.02.2018 in l.A.No. 01 of 2018ⁱⁿ W.P.No.61676 of 2018 and consequently dismissed the writ^petition in the interest of^justice.

¶43

Counsel for the Petitioner: SRI J.SURESH BABU (NOT PRESENT)

¶44

Counsel for the Respondents: GP FOR PANCHAYAT RAJ RURAL DEV

¶45

Counsel for the Respondent No.3: SRI V.NARASIMHA GOUD, SC FOR HMDA

¶46

Counsel for the Respondent No.4: SRI G.NARENDER REDDY, SC FOR GRAM PANCHAYAT

¶47

The Court made the following: ORDER

¶48

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE K.SARATH

¶49

WRIT PETITION No.6176 of 2OL8

¶50

ORDER

¶51

This petition is coming for hearing since 20 18. On 14.08.2024, when the matter was called, there^{was no} representation. and therefore the matter was directed to^be listed on O4.O9.2O24 under the caption "for^Dismissa.l". On 04.09.2024, when the matter was called, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner sought time for amending the CA1lSE title, therefore, the matter was directed to br: listed on O3.1O.2O24 under the sarne caption. Even today, when the matter was called, again there is no representation. It seems that the petitioner is not interested l-o prosecute this case.

¶52

Accordingly, the Writ Petition is dismissed for nonprosecution/default. No order as to costs.

¶53

Pending miscellaneous applications, if any, shall

¶54

stand closed.

¶55

SD/- V. KA^VITHA ASSISTANT REGISTRAR .N' /ffRUE COPY// SECTION OFFICER

¶56

To, 1 One CC to SRI^{,J.SURESHBABU, Advocate [OPUC]} 2 One CC to^{SRIV NARASIMHA GOUD, SC FOR HMDA [OPUC]} J One CC to^{SRI G.NARENDER REDDY,SC FOR GRAM PANCHAYAT} loPUCl

¶57

4 iwo cbs^{ro Gp FOR PANCHAYATRAJ RURAL DEV, High court for the} State of^{Telangana at Hyderabad} [OUT]

¶58

5 Two CD CoPies

¶59

aL BSR

I 1<r1l

HIGH COURT

DATED: 0311012024

ORDER

,t
R
o
(j 3 0 0 I L I 1
*
a{,s.,,11 a ' i-()

¶65

WP.No.6176^{of 2018}

¶66

DISMISSING^{THE WRIT PETITION}

¶67

FOR NON-PROSECUTION/DEFAULT,

¶68

WITHOUT^COSTS

¶69

CW
@ (\ ilil,

Bandaru Mayur Reddy v. the State of Telangana

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Bandaru Mayur Reddy 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

Bandla Madhu Prasad Vs The State of Telangana

Konda Laxmaiah Vs The State of Telangana

Chintareddy Madhusudhan Reddy Educational Society Vs The State of Telangana

M/s. Bsr Constructions Vs The State of Telangana

Mohd. Ibrahim Vs The State of Telangana

Mudumaala Chinna Lakshmi Vs The State of Telangana