K.Sridhar v. Andhra Pradesh State Road Transport Corporation

Telangana HC22 Nov 2024WP/6882/2010

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court for Telangana examined a writ petition filed by K.Sridhar challenging the failure to refund an Earnest Money Deposit and seeking quashing of proceedings related to shop lease at Jadcherla Bus Station. The Court closed the petition without costs on the respondents' representation that the cause of action did not survive, owing to the expiration of the lease in February 2015.

What did the court decide?

Petition dismissed; no order as to costs; miscellaneous petitions in the writ petition also closed.

K.Sridhar Vs Andhra Pradesh State Road Transport… — Property and Title | Telangana HC (2024)

¶1

132s21

¶2

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

¶3

FRIDAY, THE TWENry SECOND DAY OF NOVEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FOUR

¶4

PRESENT

¶5

THE HONOURABLE MRS JUSTICE SUREPALLI NANDA

¶6

WRIT PETITION NO: 6882 0F 2010

¶7

Between:

¶8

K.Sridhar, S/o Venkata Rao, Aged 42 years, No.2-2-11671'13/A New Nallakunta Hyderabad

¶9

...PETITIONER

¶10

AND

¶11

1 Andhra Pradesh State Road Transport Corporation, Rep.by its Managing Director Musheerabad,Hyderabad

¶12

Regional Manager, A.P.S.R.T.C Mahabubnagar Region Mahabubnagar District

¶13

3 Depot Manager, A.P.S.R.T.C Mahabubnagar District

¶14

...RESPONDENTS

¶15

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 a writ, order or direction more particularly one in the nature of writ of Mandamus declaring the action of the respondents in issuing proceedings No P31122(ll)12009 R.M MB dt 3-2-2010 and failure to refund the EME Deposited pursuant to tender Notification dt 11-2-2009 of the 2nd respondent as illegal, arbitrary and consequently direct the respondents to refund the EMD amount together with interest amount.

¶16

l.A. NO: 1 OF 2010(WPMP. NO: 8882 OF 2010)

¶17

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 direct the respondents to refund the EMD Deposit pursuant to the tender notification dt 11-2-2009.

¶18

l.A. NO: 2 OF 201O(WPMP.^{NO:8883OF 2010)}

¶19

Petition under section^{151 CPC prayingthat in the circumstances statedin} the affidavit filed^{in supportof the petition, the High Court may be pleased} suspend the^{proceedingsNO P3/122 (lly2o09 RM MB dl 3-2-2010 of the 2nd} respondent.

¶20

Counsel for the^{Petitioner: SRIMUDDANA KOTESWARA RAO}

¶21

Counsel for the^{Respondents: SRIC.SUNILKUMAR REDDY (SCFOR APSRTC)} The Court made^{the following: ORDER}

¶22

HON'BLE MRS JUSTICE SUREPALLI NANDA

¶23

WRIT PETITION No,6882 OF 2O1O

¶24

ORD ER:

¶25

Heard Sri Muddana Koteswara Rao, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner and Sri C.Sunil Kumar Reddy, learned Standing Counsel for ApSRTC, appearing on behalf of the respondents.

¶26

2 Th e Detatione a DDroac hed the ourt see tnq Draver as

¶27

u nder:

¶28

"...issue a writ order or direction more particularly one in the nature of writ of Mandamus declaring the action of the respondents in issuing proceedings No. p3l122(II)/2009 R.M. MB dated 3-2-2O7O and failure to refund the EME Deposited pursuant to tender Notification dated 11-2-2009 of the 2nd respondent as illegal, arbitrary and consequently direct the respondents to refund the EMD amount together with interest amount and pass any such other relief or reliefs as this Hon'ble Court may deem fit and proper in the circumstances of the case and interest of Justice.,,

¶29

It is represented by the learned Standing Counsel for ApSRTC appearing on behalf of the respondents that the cause of action in the present writ petition does not survive for adjudication, any more in view of the fact that the allotment of open space 12,x B,at Jadcherla Bus station to the petitioner to run sweets and bakery

¶30

¶31

wP_6882 2o"t"ii

¶32

shop is for a period of Five years and the same had expired on 03,02.2015.

¶33

Bringing the said submission of the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondents on record, the writ petition is closed. However, there shall be no order as to costs.

¶34

As a sequel, the miscellaneous petitions, if any, pending in the Writ petition shall also stand closed. SD/. MOHD.ISMAIL //rRUE coPY//^{o"t'iltflLle-g'rnan} To, becnou oFFtcER 1. One CC to SRt MUDOANA KOTESWARA RAO, Advocate. tOpUCI 2. One CC to SRt C.SUNTLKUMAR REDDY, (SC FoR APSRTC). tOpUCl 3. Two CD Copies.

BSK BsR {qr

HIGH COURT

DATED:2211112024

SrAr€
1
a
y
2 B iAN 2025 o
o
tt
,
I oE PA'T

¶39

ORDER

¶40

WP.No.6882 ot 2010

¶41

CLOSING THE WRIT PETITION WITHOUT COSTS

¶42

FQ?4 H- {trr\a':

K.Sridhar v. Andhra Pradesh State Road Transport Corporation

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

K.Sridhar v. Andhra Pradesh State Road Transport Corporation

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

M/s. Sai Parenterals Limited Vs The State of Telangana

Banoth Sali Vs The State of Telangana represented by its Principal

Ahmed Shujauddin Quadri Vs The State of Telangana

Mohd.Naseeruddin Farooqi Vs B.Venkatesham IAS

B. Manohar Reddy, Hyderabad Vs the Andhra Pradesh Central Power Distribution Ltd. Hyd Andano

Lega Ram Mohan Reddy Vs Manga Laxmi