Telangana High Court
WA/1086/2007 of A.Srinivasa Rao Vs The District Level Committee for Sand Auctions, on 28 December 2007
T.MEENA KUMARI & HONOURABLE MS JUSTICE G. ROHINI WRIT APPEAL No:1086 OF 2007 Dated: 28.12.2007 Between: A . Srinivasa Rao ..Petitioner And 1. The District Level Committee for Sand Auctions, Krishna, rep., by its Member Convener-cum-Assistant Director of Mines & Geology, Vijayawada And
HONOURABLE MRS JUSTICE T.MEENA KUMARI&HONOURABLE MS JUSTICE G. ROHINI
WRIT APPEAL No:1086 OF 2007Dated: 28.12.2007
Between:
A. Srinivasa Rao
..Petitioner
And
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.
1. The District Level Committee for
Sand Auctions, Krishna, rep., by
its Member Convener-cum-Assistant
Director of Mines & Geology, Vijayawada
And others.
..Respondents
HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE T.MEENA KUMARI&HONOURABLE MS JUSTICE G. ROHINI
JUDGMENT: (per Hon’ble Smt. Justice T. Meena Kumari)
The present writ appeal is preferred by the appellant aggrievedby an order, dated 7.12.2007 passed by the learned Single Judge inW.P.No.16169 of 2007.
The appellant herein is the petitioner in the writ petition. He filedthe writ petition seeking to declare resolution No.5, dated 11.6.2007passed by the 1[st] respondent granting extension of 70 days period infavour of the 2[nd] respondent in respect of Valluripalem Reach, KrishnaDistrict, as arbitrary and illegal and consequently, to direct the 1[st]respondent to conduct public auction in respect of Vallurupalem SandReach, Thotlavallur Mandal, Krishna District.
On the representation made by the learned GovernmentPleader for Industries that the period lapsed under the new rules andthe power of extension is not there and hence, no further orders needbe passed, the learned Single Judge dictated the order closing the writpetition. But however, the learned Counsel for the 2[nd] respondentbrought to the notice of the learned Single Judge that there is adirection made by the Court and despite the same, operation had notbeen undertaken and hence, the question of lapse would not arise andthe matter has to be adjudicated on merits.
Having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case, on7.12.2007, the learned Single Judge recalled the order alreadydictated and posted the writ petition for final hearing after three weeks. Having aggrieved by the same, the present appeal has been preferred.
The learned Counsel appearing for the appellant contends thatwhen there is a specific case of the Government that the power ofextension is not there under the Rules, the learned single Judge oughtnot to have recalled the order dated 6.12.2007.
We have perused the entire material available on record.
In the facts and circumstances of the case and in view of the fact that the issue involved in the writ petition, has to be adjudicated on itsown merits, the opinion expressed, if any, on the merits of the case atthis stage of the proceedings, would touch the very merits of the case. In this view of the matter, without expressing any opinion on the meritsof the case, We feel it appropriate to post the writ petition for finalhearing on 4[th] February, 2008. Till such time, there shall be interimsuspension of the order impugned in the writ petition.
With the above observation, the writ appeal is disposed of.
_________________________
Justice T. Meena Kumari
__________________
Justice G. Rohini
Date: 28[th] December, 2007Nn/gurc.
HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE T.MEENA KUMARI&HONOURABLE MS JUSTICE G. ROHINI
WRIT APPEAL No:1086 OF 2007
(Order delivered by the Hon’ble Smt. Justice T. Meena Kumari)
28.12.2007