Disposed

Mr. Mohammed Amanullah Ghouri, v. The State of Telangana

Telangana HC4 Aug 2025WP/19924/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Court disposed of the writ petition regarding the non-consideration of a license renewal application by directing the Respondents to consider and dispose of the representation within three weeks.

What did the court decide?

Directing respondent authorities to consider and dispose of the representation within three weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.

Mr. Mohammed Amanullah Ghouri, Vs The State of… — Writ and Judicial Review | Telangana HC (2025)

¶1

[³³⁰⁰ ]

¶2

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

¶3

N/ONDAY, THE FOURTH DAY OF AUGUST TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE

¶4

PRESENT

¶5

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE NAGESH BHEEMAPAKA

¶6

WRIT PETITION N O: 19924 0F 2025

¶7

Between:

¶8

IVlr. lVlohammed Amanurah Ghouri, s/o. I\rrohammed sadath Ghouri, Aqed about 59 years, Occ. Contractor, nyb. u. rvo. i_i-69,-c;di-Si;;e]; Z;;ir;;,r;, Sanga Reddy District, Telang ana - SOZ 220;.-^-

¶9

...PETITIONER

¶10

AND

¶11

1 The State of Telanoana. Rep. by its principal Secretary, Energy Department, Secretariat, Hyderibad.'

¶12

2 The Department of Electrical lnspectorate, Rep. by its Chief Electrical ll:9"^lg !_,s 1E 11 9l -rS t g ns-T^r, h i vi n s i t s df f ic J a i 6 i; e e, I r d i n s,' M-i ni uompound, Hyderabad - 500 063.

¶13

The secretary,-Licensing Board, Terangana Erectricar Licensing Board, stone Building, Mint Compound, Hyderabad _"SOO OtS.

¶14

...RESPONDENTS

¶15

Petition under Articre 226 of the constitution of rndia praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit fired therewith, the High court may be pleased to may be issue an appropriate writ, order or direction, more particularly one in the nature of the writ of lVandamus, decraring the inaction of the officiar Respondents in not considering and disposing of the petitioner apprication dt.16.05.2025, vide Fire No. sRD/GRARt2o2s-oo21z7 for renewar of the Electrical contractor License - Grade A, as being iflegar, arbitrary, uncon stitutional and violative of Article 14 and 21 of the constitution of lndia and consequently, direct the official Respondents herein to consider the petitioner application dt. 16.05.2025, vide Fire No. sRD/GRAR/2o2s-002177 for renewar of the Electrical contractor License - Grade A and renew the petitioner license further for a period of three years.

¶16

lA NO: 1 oF²⁰²⁵

¶17

Petition under^{Section 151 CPC prayingthat in the circumstances stated} intheaffidavitfiledinSupportofthepetition,theHighCourtmaybepleasedto directtheofficialRespondentshereintoconsiderthePetitionerapplication dt:16.05.2025,^{vide File No SRD/GRAR]2O25-,OO2177for renewal of the} Electrical Contractor^{License - Grade A and renew the Petitioner licensefurther} for a^{period of three} Years'

¶18

Counsel^{for the Petitioner:SRI D' RAGHAVENDAR RAO}

¶19

Counsel^{for the Respondent No'1: GP FOR ENERGY}

¶20

Counsel for^{the Respondent Nos'2 and 3:--'--}

¶21

The Court^{made the following:ORDER}

¶22

\ I

¶23

.-.---"""' .:w

¶24

THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE NAGESH BHEEMAPAKA WRIT PETITION No. L9924 of2025

¶25

ORDER:

¶26

This Writ Petition is filed questioning the action of respondents in not considering and disposing of the petitioner application dated 16.05 .2025, vide File No.SRD/GRAR/2O25_ OO2777 for renewal of the Electrical Contractor License_ Grade A.

¶27

Heard Sri D. Raghavendar Rao, learned counsel for the petitioners and learned Government pleader for Energr for respondent No.1. Perused the record.

¶28

Learned counsel for the petitioner made submissions on the lines of writ affrdavit and requested this court to direct the respondent authorities to consider the application of the petitioner dated 16.05.2025 as expeditiously as possible.

¶29

l,earned Government^pleader for Energr for respondent No.l submits that if the said petitioner,s application is still pending for consideration, the respondent authorities may be directed to dispose of the petitioner,s application, dated

¶30

NEK,I W.P.^{No.19924of Z0r5}

¶31

¶32

16.05.2025^{ard pass appropriate orders in accordancewith} law.

¶33

In view^{of the submissionmade by learned counsel} appearing^{on either side and without expressing any opinionon} the merits^{of the case,this writ petition is disposed of directing} respondent^{authoritiestoconsider and disposeof the said} representation^{of the petitioner in accordancewith law withina} period of^{three (03)weeksfrom the date of receiptof a copy of} this order^{artd communicatethe same to the petitioner'No} costs.

¶34

Miscellaneousapplications,ifanypending,shallstand

¶35

closed

¶36

SD/. T. VIJAY KUMAR DEPUTY REGISTRAR

¶37

//TRUE COPY//

¶38

secrB$Brrrcen

¶39

To, 1 The Principal^{Secretary, Energy Department, Secretariat, The State of} Telangana,^HYderabad.

¶40

2 The chief Electrical^{lnspector,The Department of Electrical lnspectorate,} f'ruing its office at Stone^{Building,MintCompound'}

¶41

Sil"t" Hyderabad "tl"-U"dnu, - 500 063.

¶42

3 The Secretary, Licensing^{Board, Telangana Electrical Licensing Board, Stone} Building, I/in{ Compound,^{Hyderabad - 500 063.}

¶43

¶44

One CC to Sri D. Raghavendar^{Rao, Advocate} [OPUC]

¶45

5 Two CCs to GP for Energy,^{HighCourtfor the Stateof Telangana, at} Hyderabad [OUT]

¶46

6 Two CD Copies TJ PVL

HIGH COURT

DATED:0410812025

ORDER

WP.No.19924^{of 2025}

¶51

;":::;>,
( rJ1i ' a,_ -'
-)
r)
11 sEP 20e5
L..,
().- .
a,/
----::- :;-:i)-''

¶52

DISPOSING^{OF THE WRIT PETITION}

¶53

WITHOUT COSTS

¶54

?
4','4'

Mr. Mohammed Amanullah Ghouri, v. The State of Telangana

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Mr. Mohammed Amanullah Ghouri, v. The State of Telangana

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

M/s.Usata Enterprises Private Limited Vs the State of Telangana

M/s.Njr Constructions Private Limited Vs The State of Telangana

M/s. Ramco Parboiled Rice Mill Vs State of Telangana and 5 others

Hanuma Reddy Vs The State of Telangana

pagidipalli Nageswara Rao Vs The State of Telangana

M/s. Ramanajaneya Lorry Service Vs Telangana State Industrial Infrastructural Corporation