Disposed¶43

Sri. G.Mallesham v. The State of Telangana

Telangana HC8 Jul 2025WP/26775/2019

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Telangana High Court, Writ Petition No. 26775 of 2019, decided 08-07-2025 by Justice T. Madhavi Devi: shop tenant's mandamus petition against the District Panchayat Officer, Karimnagar's vacation notice dated 23-11-2019 (Lr.No. A4/999/1990-Panchayath) for Shop No.3, Shopping Complex, District Panchayat Office, Karimnagar, issued mid-lease (lease in force up to June 2020) and without considering renewal applications dated 27-11-2019 and 08-10-2018; writ petition closed as infructuous on petitioner's counsel's submission that the cause did not survive; no order as to costs; pending miscellaneous applications closed.

What did the court decide?

None — the writ petition was closed as infructuous with no order as to costs, and pending miscellaneous applications, if any, were closed. ¶43

Sri. G.Mallesham Vs The State of Telangana — Writ and Judicial Review | Telangana HC (2025)

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

None — the writ petition was closed as infructuous with no order as to costs, and pending miscellaneous applications, if any, were closed.

¶43

Issue for consideration

Whether the action of respondent No.3 in issuing the notice dated 23-11-2019 directing the petitioner to vacate Shop No.3, Shopping Complex, District Panchayat Office, Karimnagar, suddenly in the middle of the lease period (in force up to June 2020), without valid reasons and without considering the petitioner's renewal applications dated 27-11-2019 and 08-10-2018, was illegal, arbitrary and contrary to the Telangana Panchayat Raj Act and the Constitution of India.

¶14

Ratio / Principle

Recording the submission of learned counsel for the petitioner that the cause in the writ petition does not survive for consideration, the writ petition is closed as infructuous, with no order as to costs.

¶31

Key takeaways

Pending miscellaneous applications, if any, shall stand closed.ratio¶32

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Writ Petition (Art. 226) No. 26775 of 2019 — High Court for the State of Telangana at Hyderabad (T. Madhavi Devi, J.; 08-07-2025): The petitioner, a tenant of Shop No.3, Shopping Complex, District Panchayat Office, Karimnagar, challenged the notice dated 23-11-2019 (Lr.No. A4/999/1990-Panchayath) issued by the District Panchayat Officer, Karimnagar directing him to vacate the shop suddenly in the middle of the lease period (in force up to June 2020) and without considering his renewal applications dated 27-11-2019 and 08-10-2018, as illegal, arbitrary and contrary to the Telangana Panchayat Raj Act and the Constitution of India. Before adjudication of the issue, learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the cause in the writ petition did not survive for consideration and the petition had become infructuous. Recording that submission, the Court closed the writ petition as infructuous with no order as to costs, and directed that pending miscellaneous applications, if any, stand closed.

¶1

[^321e ]

¶2

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

¶3

TUESDAY,THE EIGHTH DAY OF JULY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE

¶4

PRESENT

¶5

THE HONOURABLE SMT JUSTICE T.MADHAVI DEVI

¶6

WRIT PETITION NO:2677 5 0F 2019

¶7

Between:

¶8

Sri. -G.lvlallesham, S/o. G.Nagaiah. Aged about 46 years, Occ. Business Shoo llo 9,^{H No.2-377,DistrictFanchayiu,} onict Coirpr"i,-CJir"-i"l"iJ'n?lt Karimnagar town and Dist,TS-sOS 00 j

¶9

AND

¶10

...PETITIONER

¶11

The State of Telangana, Rgp, .by. its principat Secretary, panchayatraj ^^{Department, Telangan'a Secretdriat,'lf vaeraOaO.l.S} 2 the District Collector, Karimnagar Distiict, Karimnagar, TS

¶12

The District^panchayat Officer, karimnag;. DitriC['i{aiimnagar, TS

¶13

...RESPONDENTS

¶14

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 issue an appropriate writ, order or directions more particurarry one in the nature of writ of Mandamus, decraring the action of the respondents more particularly the respondent No.3 in issuing notice vide Lr., No. A4l 999/1990_ Panchayath, dated.23-11-2o'r g by directing the petitioner to vacate the shop No.3, shopping Complex of District panchayat Office, Karimnagar, within a week from the date of receipt of notice without any varid reasons. aI of a sudden that too in the middle of the rease period, which wi be in force up to the month of June,2020 and not considering the petitioner's applications daled.27 - 11_2O1g and 08-10-2018 respectivery by the respondent No.3 for renewar of rease period, as highly itlegal, arbitrary and contrary to the provisions of Telangana Panchayathraj Act and vioration of Articres of constrtution of rndia and set aside the same and consequenfly direct the respondents more particularly the respondenl No.3 to consider the petitioner's apprications dated.2rt11t2019 and

¶15

O8t1Ol2O18^{respectively for renewalof lease period of shopNo'3' shopping} Complex of^{District PanchayatOffice. Karimnagar,TS hence{orthas perlaw} IA NO: { oF 2019

¶16

Petition under^{Section151 CPC praying thatin the circumstances statedin} the affidavit^{filedin support of the petition, the Highcourt may be pleasedto} suspend the^{impugnednotice vide Lr'No A4l999/1990-Panchayathdated} 23-11-2O1g^{issued by the respondentNo'3henceforth} '^{pending disposalof the} above W.P

¶17

lA NO: 1 oF 2020

¶18

Between:

¶19

1 . The State of^{Telangana, Rep by. its Principal Secretary' Panchayatra'i} o"o"rt-"nt, Telangaia^{Secretdriat,HyderabadT S}

¶20

z iriS o"tri.lbortect"or,^{xarimnagarDist-rict,Karimnagar' TS} 5. Tne Oistrict^{PanchayatOfficer, Karimnagar District' Karlmnagar'lb}

¶21

...PETITIONERS/RESPONDENTS

¶22

AND Sri. G.Mallesham,^{S/o. G.Nagaiah.Agedabout46 years'OccBusiness Shop} ii.aI u-Ni.z-C72,-^{dittti"t FJnCr,avitnoffice cohplex'collectorate Road'} KarimnagartownandDist'Ts-s0s001 ...RES'ONDENT/pET,T'ONER

¶23

Petitionundersectionl5lCPCprayingthatinthecircumstanoesstatedin the affidavit filed^{in supportof the petition, the High Court may be pleased to} vacate the interim^{ordersdated 04 12 2019 passed in WP No 2677512019 aod} dismiss the above^writ Petition

¶24

counself orthePetitioner:sRl.sHlvAi,llrtf*?frt.WARLU

¶25

Counsel for the^{Respondents:GP FOR PANCHAYAT} RA"' RURAL^DEVELOPMENT

¶26

The Court made^{the following:ORDER}

¶27

ll \

¶28

THE HONOURABLE SMT JUSTICE T.MADHAVI DEVI WRIT PETITION No.26775 oF 2019

¶29

ORDER:

¶30

Sri B. Shiva^prasad, learned counsel representing Sri B. Venkateshwarlu, learned counsel for the petitioner, submits that the cause in this writ petition does not survive for consideration and therefore, the wdt petition has become infructuous.

¶31

Recording the above said submission, the writ petition is closed as infructuous. There shall be no order as to costs.

¶32

3 Pending miscellaneous applications, if any, sha_ll

¶33

stand closed.

¶34

To,

¶35

sD/tfs?s,XlHTFJ,tT$[ / //TRUE COPY// SECTION OFFICER

¶36

1 2 One CC to SRI. BETHI VENKATES WARLU , Advocate IoPUC Two CCs to GP FOR PANCHAYAT RAJ R URAL DE VELOPM ENT,High J Two Court for theCD Cop resState of Telangana at Hydera bad [OUrl

BM (p_

HIGH COURT

DATED:0810712025

ORDER