Telangana High Court
WA/2184/2004 of M/s. Maruthi Industries, Timber Merchants, Vs The /Divisional Railway Manager, on 31 December 2004
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD FRIDAY, THE THIRTY FIRST DAY OF DECEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND FOUR PRESENT THE HON'BLE SRI DEVINDER GUPTA, THE CHIEF JUSTICE and THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE M.NARAYANA REDDY WRIT APPEAL No. 2184 of 2004 (Writ Appeal under Clause 15 of the Letters
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD
FRIDAY, THE THIRTY FIRST DAY OF DECEMBERTWO THOUSAND AND FOUR
PRESENT
THE HON'BLE SRI DEVINDER GUPTA, THE CHIEF JUSTICE
and
THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE M.NARAYANA REDDY
WRIT APPEAL No. 2184 of 2004
(Writ Appeal under Clause 15 of the Letters Patent against the Order dated23/09/2004 in WP No. 23334 OF 1999 on the file of the High Court.)
Between:
M/s. Maruthi Industries, Timber Merchants, Tufan Nagar Road, Near RailwayStation, (Western side) Kavali, Nellore District.
..... APPELLANT
AND
1.The Divisional Railway Manager, (Works Branch), South Central Railway,Vijayawada.
2.The Senior Divisional Engineer, South Central Railway, (Works Branch),Vijayawada.Vijayawada.
3.The Estate Officer, South Central Railway, Vijayawada.
.....RESPONDENTS
Counsel for the Appellant: Mr.L.Ravichander for Mr.T.S.ANAND
Counsel for the Respondents: Mr.Gouri Shankar Sanghi SC for Railways.
The Court at the admission stage made the following :
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.
ORAL JUDGMENT:
(per The Honourable Sri DevinderGupta, the Chief Justice)
The appellant filed the Writ Petition questioning the action of the respondents indemanding enhanced licence fees on the ground that it was not liable to pay theenhanced licence fees. The Writ Petition was opposed by the respondent-Railwayson number of grounds. Learned Single Judge dismissed the Writ Petition on theground that there is suppression of facts and that there is already notice issuedunder the provisions of the Public Premises (Eviction of Unauthorised Occupants)Amendment Act, 1980 (for short “the Act”), and, the petitioner appellant can work outits remedies in accordance with law. The said order dismissing the Writ Petition isunder challenge in this Appeal.
We have heard the learned counsel for parties.
Notice under sub-section (3) of Section 7 of the Act was served upon the petitionerrequiring it to pay the licence fee as demanded by the respondents, and, to showcause as to why order requiring to pay the arrears be not made. Instead of replyingto the show-cause notice, Writ Petition was filed.
In such like matters, when remedy can be worked out under the provisions of theAct, rightly, learned Single Judge did not entertain the Writ Petition. But, whiledismissing the Writ Petition, learned Single Judge recorded some finding and madesome observations, which, according to the learned counsel for the appellant, arelikely to come in the way of the appellant in contesting those proceedings.
We, accordingly, dispose of this Writ Appeal by setting aside the order of the learnedSingle Judge, and, dismiss the Writ Petition with liberty reserved to the appellant tosubmit reply to show cause notice dated: 31.8.1999 within a period of four weeksfrom today before the Estate Officer, Additional Railway Manager, South CentralRailway, Vijayawada, whereafter, the Estate Officer shall proceed to take hisdecision in accordance with law. For a period of four weeks, status quo as obtainingon today shall continue to be maintained, and, no coercive action is taken against the appellant. In case, the petitioner-appellant would feel aggrieved by the decisionof the Estate Officer, it will be open to the petitioner-appellant to challenge the orderin accordance with law. Needless to add that the observations made by the learnedSingle Judge will not come in the way of the petitioner in contesting the proceedingsbefore the Estate Officer. No costs.
_______________________
DEVINDER GUPTA, C.J.
31.12.2004.
________________________
M.NARAYANA REDDY, J.
VR.
To
1. The Divisional Railway Manager, (Works Branch), South Central Railway,Vijayawada.Vijayawada.
2. The Senior Divisional Engineer, South Central Railway, (Works Branch),Vijayawada.Vijayawada.
3. The Estate Officer, Additional Railway Manager, South Central Railway,Vijayawada.Vijayawada.
4. Two CD copies.