Pidathala PremaKumari, W/o. Pidathala Chinna, Aged about 30 Years, Occ: Tailoring R:/o. H No. 4-8'14, Marthanda Nagar New Hafeezpet, Serilingampalli Mandal, Ranga Reddy District.

¶10

...PETITIONER

¶11

AND

¶12

1 . THE STATE OF TELANGANA, The State of Telangana, Rep. by its Principal Secre(ary, Social Welfare Department Secretariat building, Hyderabad

¶13

The District Collector i Chairman, The District Schedule Caste Co-operative Society ( SCSCDS Ltd) Ranga Reddy District

¶14

The Executive Director, Ranga Reddy District Schedule Caste Cooperative Development Society 4th Floor, Spoorthy Bhavan, Lakdikapool, Hyderabad.

¶15

The Project Director, District Rural Development Authority Ranga Reddy, Ranga Reddy District.

¶16

B. Satyanarayana, S/o.Narsimha, Aged about 32years, Occ,Business, R/o^H No- 1-5719712, Street No. 3 Gachibowli Serilingampalli, Ranga Reddy District.

¶17

...RESPONDENTS

¶18

Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of lndia^praying that^{in the} circumstances stated in the affidavit filed therewith, the High^{Court maybe} pleased to issue an appropriate writ, order or direction more particularly one in the nature of WRIT OF MANDAMUS declaring the^proceedings in Lr No.C/3548/SC /RRy1987 dated 16/09/2019 of the 2ndrespondent in allotting the shop^{No. 2, at} Gachibowli Shopping Complex, Serilingampally, Ranga^Reddy District^{to the Sth} respondent is illegal, arbitrary, contrary to the terms and^conditions of the^tender notifications and as well as the violation of the fundamental^{rights guaranteed} under the constitution of lndia, set aside the same^{consequently directthe} respondents to allot the above said shop to the^petitioner.

¶19

lA NO: 1 OF 2021

¶20

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 direct the respondent to allot the shop No.2, at Gachibowli Shopping Complex, Serilingampay, Ranga Reddy District by suspending Lr No. C/3548/SC /RR/1987 dated 16/09/2019 of the 2ndrespondent forthwith pending disposal of the main writ petition.

¶21

Counsel for the Petitioner: SRl. AMBEDKAR DUNNA

¶22

Counsel for the Respondents: GP FOR SOCIAL WELFARE (TG)

¶23

Counsel for the Respondents:2&3: SAPAVATH SRINIVAS

¶24

The Court made the following: ORDER

¶25

HON'BLE MRS JUSTICE SUREPALLI NANDA

¶26

WRIT PETITION No.8537 of 2 o2t

¶27

ORDER

¶28

Heard Sri Ambedkar Dunna. learned^counsel appearing on behalf of the^{petitioner, Sri Sapavath} Srihivas, learned Standing^{Counsel appearing on behalf} of respondent Nos.2 and 3 and the^{learned Assistant} Government Pleader for Social Welfare, .appearing^on behalf of respondent Nos.1 and^4.

¶29

The petitioner approached the^{Court seeking} prayer as under:

¶30

"...to lssue an appropriate writ order or direction more particularly one in the nature^ofWRITOF MANDAMIJS declaring the proceedings in Lr,No.C/3548/SC /RR/1987 dated^{16/09/2079of the 2'd} respondent in allotting the^{shop No'2 at Gachibowli} Shopping Comptex, Serilingampally,^{Ranga Reddy} District to the 5th respondent is^{illegal, arbitrary,} contrary to the terms and^{conditionsof the tender} notifications and as well as the^{violationofthe} fundamental rights^{guaranteedunder the constitutionof} India, set aside^{the same consequentlydirect the} respondents to^{allot the above said shop tothe} petitioner and^pass such other^order or^{orders as this}

¶31

¶32

¶33

Hon'ble Court deems fit and proper in the interest of justice",

¶34

The case of the petitioner in brief is that, in pursuance to the notification dated 12.O6.2Otg issued by the respondents inviting applications for allotment of the shops in Gachibowli shopping compiex to the Scheduled Caste entrepreneurs particularly women/widows, the petitioner made an application for allotment of the shop for tailoring purpose. As per the notification, the preference should be given to the women entrepreneurs so as to promote women, particularly scheduled caste women. Hcwever, respondent authorities without allotting the shops to the SC Women i.e., the petitioner, allotted shop No.2 in Gachibowli Shopping Complex, Hyderabad to the respondent No.5. Aggrieved by the same, the present writ petition is filed.

¶35

4 e nter davi ha en fil don half the resDo dent No.2 and oa rtic u la rlv. araor oh No .11 an 16 to 2O are extracted he inun er:

¶36

"11. The petitioner along with other Four (4) applicants appeared before the selection committee. After verifying the relevant documents as stiputated in the guidelines, it is submitted that three (3)

¶37

¶38

appticants (one male applicant and other^{2 female} applicants) were found eligible^{and were shortlist"} 16. It is further submitted that^the draw/lottery was conducted^{in transparentmanner} wherein the Petitioner herself^{was asked by the} Committee to^pick the^{draw/lotteryselection among} the three⁽³⁾ shortlisted^{applicantsin the chamber of} loint Collector on^{11.09.2019and very much in the} presence of the other two (2) Shortlisted^applicants' It is pertinent to mention^{that as per the processof} drawfiottery,^{"the petitioner hereinhas'pickedone} slip containing one^{name amongthe three(3)} shortlisted appticants^{from the box, in which the} name of 5th respondent^{was pickedby the Petitioner} herein and there^{was no quarrelor disputerelatingto} the selection on the date^{of the draw/lottery i.e'} 11.09.2019".

¶39

It is submitted after^{allotmentof the shop} No.2, the Sth respondent^{had entered into Lease} Agreement and is^{successfullyrunning a medical} shop for the tast 2^{years bY promptly payinglease} amount on a regular^{basisand running his business} catering to the needs^{of the colony residentsin the} said Shop.

¶40

rt submitted that for the allo ent of the sa Shop No.2 at^Gachi, wli sho Dino comolex, e com ittee has follo wed the ouidel^{,nes tn} a transoarent manner bv

¶41

¶42

llow tn tra tm ne and e Detitioner herself beins the oarticioant cannot tem a wt out ts. 79. A r 2 vears of comDletion of el on mt e PetitI er rern ts stn the e n hu ten e UN an roa ,n eH n'bl Hi, Co rta d fit,ns ,s DEtition with iil I nti, s re e ov wri ton d id m dt I le be dis mtssed.

¶43

The petitioner cannot invoke the jurisdiction of the Hon,ble Court under Article 226 of Constitution of India since there is no violation of the constitution provisions and the petitioner herein did not approach the Hon'ble Court with clean hands and bonafidely and there are latches on the part of the petitioner and therefore, the petition is liabte to be dismissed in the interests of justice.

¶44

A bare perusal of the report dated 18.02.2021 clearly indicates that the request of the petitioner for allotment of Shop No,2 at Gachibowli Shopping Complex, Serilingampalty Municipality was considered by the respondents and the relevant portion of the said report dated 18.02,2021 is extracted hereinunder:

I I

"Further submit that out of 3 one applicant Smt.Prem Kumari has^{requestedthe loint Collector} to attot shop to female, then^the ioint^{collector has} asked rest of the 2 candidates^{for allotment of shop} No.2 to her, but they^{have been objected and all are} requested to allot the shop on^{lottery basis. As per} the orders of the Joint^{Collector lotterywas} conducted, before the^{candidates on 11.09.2019in} the chamber of loint Collector.^{The loint Collector} has asked Smt.P.Prem^{Kunari to pickup one slip from} the box, she has^{picked one draw slip from the lot} box i.e., St.No.3.^{D.SatyanarayanaS/o'Narsimha} has been selected in draw Process."

¶49

¶50

A bare^perusal of the report^{dated 1B'02.202t clearly} indicates that the^{petitioner approachedthis Court raising} frivolous pleas and the^{request of the petitionerfor allotment} of shop to the SC^{women was duly considered and lottery was} conducted as^per the orders of^{the loint Collector before the} candidates on 11.09.2019 in^{the chamber of the Joint} Collector and the^{petitioner herselfhad picked up one slip} from the box and the^{respondent No.5 had been selected in} the draw^process and after^{two years of selection, the} petitioner approached the Court by fiiing the^presentwrit petition.

¶51

,,1

¶52

¶53

Taking into consideration the contents of the report dated 18.02.2O2L and the averments made at paragraph No.11 and 16 to 2O of the counter affidavit filed on behalf of the respondent No.2 (referred to and extracted above), this Court opines that the present writ petition is devoid of merits and is accordingly, dismissed. However, there shall be no order as to costs.

¶54

Miscellaneous petitions, if any, pending shall stand closed.

¶55

¶56

//TRUE COPY//

¶57

SD/-P. PADMANABHA^REDDY ASqrs TA NT REGISTRAR \

¶58

$E\rror.r OFFIC

¶59

To,

¶60

The Pricipal Secretary ,^{The State of Telangana,SocialWelfare Department} Secretariat building, HYderabad

¶61

The District collector^{/ chairman, The District schedulecaste co-operative} Society⁽ SCSCDS^{Ltd) Ranga Reddy Diskict}

¶62

The Executive Director,^{Ranga Reddy District Schedulecastecooperative_} - Development Society 4th Flo-or, Spodrtny Bhavan, Lakdikapool, Hyderabad'

¶63

The Project Director, District^{Rural Development Authority Ranga Reddy,} Ranga Reddy District.

¶64

B. Satyanarayana, S/o.Narsimha,^{Aged about 32years, Occ,Business, R/o H} No.l-Sltllti. Street No. 3 Gachibowli^{Serilingampalli, Ranga Reddy District.}

¶65

One CC to SRl. AMBEDKAR DUNNA Advocate [OPUC]

¶66

Two CCs to GP FOR SOCIAL WELFARE^(TG) 'High^{Court for the Stateof} Telangana. [OUT]

¶67

B. Two Two CD Copies tr

¶68

B. Two Two CD Copies

HIGH COURT

DATED:1010912024

ORDER

4=:
G Q
/:"" t
t.!:
c,r-) tt ir I r1 nL\l(J i'
l
l( n E s t,l',' ;.',(.'., ,/
I
--:-i':-'

¶73

WP.No.8537 of 2021

¶74

DISMISSING OF THE WRIT PETITION

¶75

WITHOUT COSTS

¶76

2t Jr f^z{- I)

Pidathala PremaKumari v. the State of Telangana

Case brief

What is this about?

What the court decided

Pidathala PremaKumari v. the State of Telangana

Case brief

What is this about?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Bhukya Kishan Vs The State of Telangana and 3 others

Jummidi Ramulu Vs The Singarei Collieries Company Ltd.

Manne Suvarna, Medak Dist Vs Cgm, Apcpdcl, Hyderabad

Jama Susheela Vs The State of Telangana

S.Tirupathaiah, Vs The Singareni Collieries Company Limited.

Manga Somaraju Vs The Special Deputy Collector (Tribal Welfare)