Dismissed¶48

M/S a.v.Alloys Ltd. v. the Govt of A.P and Another

Telangana HC2 Feb 2026WP/5856/2010

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Telangana High Court; W.P. No. 5856 of 2010; order dated 02.02.2026; Justices P. Sam Koshy and Narsing Rao Nandikonda; M/s A.V. Alloys Ltd; Vikram Daga; Patancheru; Nandigama Gram Panchayat; Medak District; house tax recovery Rs. 2,81,427; proceedings No. 1552-tl dt 18-1-2010; Article 226 mandamus; Section 151 CPC stay; dismissed for want of prosecution; no representation by petitioner; no order as to costs; miscellaneous petitions closed; merits not adjudicated.

What did the court decide?

The writ petition is dismissed for want of prosecution. ¶48

M/S a.v.Alloys Ltd. Vs the Govt of A.P and Another — Company and Corporate | Telangana HC (2026)

I I

i i

13447 |

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

¶6

MONDAY, THE SECOND DAY OF FEBRUARY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENW SIX

¶7

PRESENT

¶8

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE P.SAIU KOSHY AND THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE NARSING RAO NANDIKONDA

¶9

WRIT PETITION NO: 5856 OF 2010

¶10

Between:

¶11

M/s.A.V.Alloys Ltd, Rep.by its Managing Director Mr Vikram.Daga Rege under the Companies Act 1956) Regd Office Sy NO 355/A,Nandigaon (Vill) Patancheru(M), Medak District.

¶12

...PETITIONER

¶13

AND

¶14

The Govemment of A.P, rep.by Secretary Department of Panchayat Raj Secretariat, Hyderabad

¶15

The Executive Officer, Gram Panchayat, Nandigama(V) Patancheru(M) Medak District-502300

¶16

...RESPONDENTS

¶17

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 herein in seeking to recover house tax of Rs 2,81 ,4271- trom the petitioner a.s illegal,arbitrary and unconstitutional and consequently set aside the procbedings of the 2nd respondent bearing No 1552-tl dt 18-1-2010.

¶18

/,/

¶19

l.A. NO:^'l OF 2010(WPMP. NO: 7554 OF 2010)

¶20

Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the ci cumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court rn ry be pleased stay of all further proceedings pursuant to the proceedings of the 2r I respondent bearing No 1552 -11 dt18-12-2010.

¶21

Counsel for the Petitioner : SRI VAROHINENI KRISHNAMO {AN Counsel for the Respondent No.1 : GP FOR PANCHAYAT t AJ & RURAL DEV Counsel for Respondents No.2 :SRl K.PRADEEP REDDY, S C FOR Gp,Mp,Zp The Court made the following: ORDER

¶22

( t

¶23

TIIE HONOURABLE^{SRI JUSTICE P.SAMKOSHY} AND THE TIONOT]RABLE^{SRI JUSTICE NARSING RAO} NANDIKONDA

W.P.No. s856 0F²⁰¹⁰

02.02.2026

Between:

tWs A.V.Alloys^Limited, Rep. by its Managing^Director,

Mr. Vikram^Daga.

..Petitioner

AND

The Govememnt^{of A.P.,} Rep. by Secretary,^{Departmentof PanchayatRaj,} Secretariat,^HYderabad

and another

..Respondents

ORDER,^{(per Hon'bleSri Justice P'Sam Koshy)}

¶36

¶37

Ms. Roohi^{Nabeela, leamedAssistant GovemmentPleader}

¶38

for Panchayat^{Raj and Rural DevelopmentDepartment for}

¶39

respondent^{No. l.}

¶40

For the last couple^{of dates of hearing, there has beenno}

¶41

representation^{on behalf of the petitioner either by the counsel}

¶42

engaged^{or by the petitioner-in-person'}

¶43

¶44

¶45

Considering the fact that the writ petition i ; of the year

¶46

2010, it appears that the petitioner must have lost nterest in the litigation. [n vierv of the same, the Bench is left^.r i1h no option,

¶47

but to dismiss the writ petition for want of prosecut r rL.

¶48

The u'rit petition is, accordingly, dismiss: I for want of

¶49

prosecution. There shall be no order as to costs

¶50

Consequently. miscellaneous petitions pendin;, if any, shall

¶51

stand closed

¶52

//TRUE COPY//

¶53

ST)^.P.C.SULEKHA DEVI ASS STANT REGISTRAR

(5'

SECTION OFFICER

To,

One CC to SRI VARDHINENI KRISHNAIVOHAN, Advcr rte. [OPUC] 2. Two CCs to GP FOR PANCHAYAT RAJ & RURAL DE v High Court for the State of Telangana. [OUT]

¶58