Telangana High Court
WA/200/2011 of Yanamadala Nageswara Rao Vs Marella Srinivasa Rao on 29 December 2011
JUSTICE SHRI MADAN B.LOKUR AND HONOURABLE SHRI JUSTICE SANJAY KUMAR WRIT APPEAL NO.200 OF 2011 Dt: 29-12-2011. Between: YANAMADALA NAGESWARA RAO .. APPELLANT AND MARELLA SRINIVASA RAO AND OTHERS .. RESPONDENTS HONOURABLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE SHRI MADAN B.LOKUR AND HONOURABLE SHRI JUSTICE SANJAY
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.
Conclusion
HONOURABLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE SHRI MADAN B.LOKURANDHONOURABLE SHRI JUSTICE SANJAY KUMAR
WRIT APPEAL NO.200 OF 2011
Dt: 29-12-2011.
Between:
YANAMADALA NAGESWARA RAO .. APPELLANT
AND
MARELLA SRINIVASA RAOAND OTHERS .. RESPONDENTS
HONOURABLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE SHRI MADAN B.LOKURANDHONOURABLE SHRI JUSTICE SANJAY KUMAR
WRIT APPEAL NO.200 OF 2011
JUDGMENT: (PER HON’BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE SHRI Madan B.Lokur)
The appellant is aggrieved by an order dated 6.10.2010 passed bya learned single Judge in W.P.No.25050 of 2010.
2. The prayer made in the writ petition was for disposal of anapplication dated 23.11.2009 for grant of house sites and to completethe enquiry contemplated under R.C. B.1035/05.
3. The learned single Judge, by the order under appeal, directed theofficial respondents to dispose of the representation within a period oftwo months.
4. Feeling aggrieved, respondent No.4 before the learned singleJudge has filed this writ appeal.
5. It is submitted that the direction given by the learned single Judgefor disposal of the representation made by the writ petitioner was withoutany notice to the appellant.
6. On being asked what prejudice has been caused to the appellant, itis stated at the Bar that an enquiry on the same subject had alreadybeen conducted and closed by the official respondents. When we askedlearned counsel for the appellant to tell us where such an averment hasbeen made, he has drawn our attention to paragraph No.5 of theaffidavit, which merely says that according to him, the proceedings aredeemed to have been dropped. This is completely different from whathas been stated at the Bar.
7. We are told by learned counsel for the writ petitioner that notice ofthe enquiry has been given to the appellant and he is actuallyparticipating in the enquiry. That being the position, we are not inclinedto interfere in this writ appeal.the enquiry has been given to the appellant and he is actuallyparticipating in the enquiry. That being the position, we are not inclinedto interfere in this writ appeal.
8. The writ appeal is dismissed. Miscellaneous application is alsodismissed.dismissed.
Dt: 29-12-2011.
( MADAN B.LOKUR, CJ )
( SANJAY KUMAR, J )
TNB