Telangana High Court
WA/2025/2013 of N. Ramakrishnaiah S/o Siddaiah Vs The Chief Executive Officer, Zilla Parishad, on 31 December 2013
THE CHIEF JUSTICE SRI KALYAN JYOTI SENGUPTA AND THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE SANJAY KUMAR Writ Appeal No. 2025 of 2013 DATED:31.12.2013 Between: N. Ramakrishnaiah, Pochannapeta, Bachannapet Mandal, Warangal District. … Appellant And The Chief Executive Officer, Zilla Parishad,
Citations and Judicial Treatment
Cited by
0
Decisions in the index citing it
Cites
0
Decisions referred to
In this index
0
Of the decisions it cites
Overruled / Questioned
0
No negative treatment found
Loading the citing and cited decisions…
This judgment in the centre: on the left the decisions it cites, on the right the decisions citing it. Colour is the treatment; choose a decision to open it.
THE HON’BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE SRI KALYAN JYOTISENGUPTA AND
THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE SANJAY KUMAR
Writ Appeal No. 2025 of 2013
DATED:31.12.2013
Between:N. Ramakrishnaiah,Pochannapeta, Bachannapet Mandal,Warangal District.
… Appellant
And
The Chief Executive Officer,Zilla Parishad, Khammam, Khammam District, and others.
….Respondents
THE HON’BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE SRI KALYAN JYOTISENGUPTA AND
THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE SANJAY KUMAR
Writ Appeal No. 2025 of 2013
Judgment:(per the Hon’ble the Chief Justice Sri Kalyan Jyoti Sengupta)
Having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case, weare of the view that the learned Single Judge has passed a perfectorder.
The grievance of the appellant before us is that theGovernment has not reimbursed the extra amount of expenditureincurred by him for holding elections to the Gram Panchayats. We aresurprised to see how a Government official can spend moneyexceeding the limit fixed by the Government. We also fail tounderstand why an endeavour is also made for reimbursement of thesame.
In any view of the matter, the learned Single Judge hasexamined this matter and directed the 1[st] respondent to reconsider theissue with reference to the bills produced by the appellant.
Under the circumstances, we do not find any reason to interferewith the impugned order.
The appeal is accordingly dismissed.
Consequently, the miscellaneous applications, if any pending,shall also stand dismissed. No costs..
_____________________
K.J. SENGUPTA, CJ
_________________
SANJAY KUMAR,
J 31.12.2013PNB