Telangana High Court
WP/25982/2006 of K.Shiva Prasad, Vs The Srikalahasthi Municipality, on 26 December 2006
SRI JUSTICE P.S.NARAYANA WRIT PETITION NO.25982 of 2006 DATED 26.12.2006 Between: K.Siva Prasad. …. PETITIONER versus The Srikalahasthi Municipality, Srikalahasthi, represented by its Commissioner, Chittoor District and another. …. RESPONDENTS WRIT PETITION NO.25982 of
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
THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE P.S.NARAYANA
WRIT PETITION NO.25982 of 2006
DATED 26.12.2006
Between:
K.Siva Prasad. …. PETITIONER
versus
The Srikalahasthi Municipality,Srikalahasthi, represented by itsCommissioner, Chittoor Districtand another. …. RESPONDENTS
WRIT PETITION NO.25982 of 2006
ORDER:
This Court ordered Notice Before Admission on 15.12.2006. SriS.I. Newton, learned Standing Counsel had taken notice on behalf ofrespondent No.1. The learned counsel for the petitioner was alsopermitted to take out notice to 2[nd] respondent and file proof of service. Proof of service is filed.
2. Several factual details narrated in the affidavit filed in support ofthe Writ Petition need not be dealt with in detail for the reason that WritPetition No.9564 of2006 was disposed of by this Court by order dated 27.6.2006 directing as hereunder:
“On overall appreciation of the facts and circumstances,inasmuch as the impugned order was made withoutconsidering the representation dated 15.1.2005, whichappears to be a representation containing severaldetails, this Court is of the considered opinion that theimpugned order is liable to be set aside and accordinglythe same is hereby set aside. However, the firstrespondent is at liberty to take into consideration all the facts and circumstances inclusive of the representation ofthe petitioner dated 15.11.2005 and pass appropriateorders on merits and in accordance with law, inclusive ofseveral proceedings. It is needless to say that thesecond respondent also be heard in this matter, since itis stated that he is the real affected party.
Accordingly the Writ Petition is disposed of. Nocosts”.
3. The main grievance of the writ petitioner is that though the WritPetition was disposed of inasmuch as no time as such had beenspecified, no further action is being initiated in this regard. In the lightof the directions already issued supra in Writ Petition No.9564 of 2006,this Court is of the considered opinion that this Writ Petition bedisposed of directing the 1[st] respondent to take into consideration allthe facts and circumstances inclusive of the representation of thepetitioner dated 15.11.2005 and pass appropriate orders on merits inaccordance with law, inclusive of several proceedings, after putting the2[nd] respondent on notice in the event of the 1[st] respondent being ofthe opinion that the 2[nd] respondent also would be an affected party,within a period of four (04) weeks from the date of receipt of a copy ofthis order.
4. With the directions indicated above, the Writ Petition is disposedof. No costs.
------------------------
26.12.2006
SSR