Telangana High Court
WP/24372/2000 of L.Shankar Kumar, Vs The Commissioner and Director of Municipal Administration, on 28 December 2006
SRI JUSTICE P.S.NARAYANA WRIT PETITION NO.24372 of 2000 DATED 28.12.2006 Between: L.Shankar Kumar. .. PETITIONER versus The Director of Municipal Administration, A.P., B.R.K.R. Buildings, Tank Bund, Hyderabad and two others. .. RESPONDENTS WRIT PETITION NO.24372 of 2000 ORDER: The Writ
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 HONL’BLE SRI JUSTICE P.S.NARAYANA
WRIT PETITION NO.24372 of 2000
DATED 28.12.2006
Between:
L.Shankar Kumar. .. PETITIONER
versus
The Director of Municipal Administration, A.P., B.R.K.R. Buildings, Tank Bund, Hyderabad and two others. .. RESPONDENTS
WRIT PETITION NO.24372 of 2000
ORDER:
The Writ Petition is filed for a Writ of Mandamus declaring the inaction on the part ofrespondents 1 and 2 in not taking action against 3[rd] respondent as unconstitutionaland illegal and consequently direct respondents 1 and 2 to initiate appropriateaction against 3[rd] respondent as per the provisions of law forthwith and pass suchother suitable orders.
2. This Court issued Rule Nisi on 12.12.2000 and made an order of interim directionin WPMP No.31124 of 2000 directing to dispose of the representation dated17.3.2000 made by the petitioner and pass appropriate orders within a period of twoweeks from the date of receipt of a copy of the order.
3. It is stated in the affidavit filed in support of the Writ Petition that the petitioner is anAdvocate by profession and the 3[rd] respondent and the then Chair Person indulgedin financial irregularities. It is also further stated that the petitioner gave arepresentation to respondents 1 and 2, but the preliminary enquiry report was notrevealed and the petitioner also issued contempt notice and his latest representationis dated 17.3.2000.
4. In the counter affidavit filed by 1[st] respondent, the representation made by the petitioner had been referred to and various steps in this regard also had beennarrated in detail. Writ Petition Nos.15576 of 1999 and 2330 of 1999 also had beenreferred to. Specific stand is taken that on examination it was found by theGovernment that no allegations had been proved against the MunicipalCommissioner, Ichapuram. It is also stated that there are no findings against theMunicipal Commissioner-3[rd] respondent as per the report of the Regional Director-cum-Appellate Commissioner of Municipal Administration-2[nd] respondent, vide hisreport Lr.Roc.No.796/99/A4, dated 1.5.1999, and in such circumstances it is statedthat it is not possible to initiate any action against the Municipal Commissioner,Ichapuram in the matter.
5. In the light of the facts and circumstances explained in detail, this Court is of theconsidered opinion that the stand taken by the 1[st] respondent in the counter affidavitis a justifiable stand. Even otherwise, if the petitioner is aggrieved of any subsequentevents, in the light of the peculiar facts and circumstances, the petitioner is givenliberty to make appropriate representation in this regard. Except making thisobservation, nothing else can be done.
6. Writ Petition is disposed of accordingly. No costs.
-------------------------
28.12.2006
SSR