M. Srinivas Shanker v. The State of Telangana and 3 Others
Court: High Court for State of Telangana
Bench: ABHINAND KUMAR SHAVILI
Judgment date:
Case summary
High Court for State of Telangana judgment dated 2020-12-10. M. Srinivas Shanker v. The State of Telangana and 3 Others. Read the judgment and case details...
Judgment text
HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) THURSDAY ,THE TENTH DAY OF DECEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY PRESENT THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE ABHINAND KUMAR SHAVILI WRIT PETITION NO: 15840 OF 2020 Between: M. Srinivas Shanker, S/o Late M. Kondaiah, Aged. 3B years, R/o. 5-9-560, Gunfoundry, Abids, Hyderabad - 500001. ... PETITIONER AND 1. The State of Telangana, Rep by its Special chief Secretary, Revenue Department(Services ll), Secretariat Buildings, Secretariat, Hyderabad. 2. The Chief Commissioner of Land Administration, Telangana State, Hyderabad. 3. The T. S. Election Commissioner, Sth Floor, Budha Bhavan, Hyderabad. Represented by its CEO. 4. The District Collector, Nalgonda, Nalgonda District. ..
RESPONDENTS Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of lndia praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed therewith, the High Court may be pleased lo issue an appropriate writ, order or direction more particularly one in the nature of the Writ of Mandamus, declaring the action of the respondent No,4 is issuing the suspension order vide Procdgs. No. A'1 1411112019-2 daied 1510912019 and the consequential order of the second respondent in CCLAs Endoresment No. Ser. lll(1)/953/2019 dated 10/06i2020 as arbitrary, illegal, un. lust and violative of Rule 13 of CCA Rules and consequently directly the respondent authorities to set aside the same. lA NO: 1 OF 2020 Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased to suspend the order of fourth respondent issued vide Procdgs. No.
A'l 1411112019'2 daled 1510912019 and the consequential proceedings of the second respondent issued in CCLAs Endorsement No. Ser. lll('1 )/953/2019 dated 1010612020, pending disposal of the above writ petition and pass Counsel for the Petitioner : Ms. B. RAJESWARI Counsel forthe Respondents: GP FOR SERVICES-|| The Court made the following: ORDER I THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE ABHINAND KUMAR SHAVILI WRIT PETITION N o. I 5840 ol 2O2O ORDER: This writ petition is belng disposed of ot the odmission stoge wilh the consenl of boih porties. This writ pelilion is filed seeking the following relief "...... to issue an appropriate writ, order or direction, more particutarty one in the nature of the Writ of Mandamus dectaring the action of the respondent No. 4 is issuing the suspension order vide Proceedings No. A114111/2019-2 dated 15/0912019 and the consequential order of the second respondent in CCLA's Endorsement No. Ser.
lll(1)/953/2019 dated 10/06/2020 as arbitrary, ittegat, unjust and viotative of Rute 13 of CCA Rules and consequentty directty the respondent authorities to set aside the same..... ". Heord Ms. B. Rojeshworl, leorned counsel oppeoring for the petitioner ond the leorned Government Pleoder for Services-ll oppeoring f or the espondents. ll hos been conlended by lhe petitioner thot he is working os o Tohsildor ond the Dis'trict Collec'lor hos ploced him under suspension vide proceedings doted 15. 09. 2019 olleging lhot he hos illegolly lronsfened lhe Government lond in fovour of the privote individuols. The District Collector is compelent to ploce him under suspension for o period of lhree months ond loter on, lhe soid order of the District Collector hos to be rotified by the Chief Commissioner of Lond Adminislrotion.
But, in the instont cose, lhe Chief 1 Commissioner of Lond Administrolion hos not rotified the suspension order ond conlinued him under suspension beyond three monlhs controry lo the Rules. Therefore, leorned counsel oppeoring for the pelitioner contended thol the order possed by the Dislrict Colleclor connot be enforced, ofler expiry of three months ond the competent oulhorily fo continue the pelilioner under suspension beyond lhree monlhs is lhe Chief Commissioner of Lond Adminislro'iion. Therefore. the impugned suspension order is lioble to be se'l oside only on the ground lhol the Dislrict Colleclor order wos not rotified by lhe Chief Commissioner of Lond Administrotion. Leorned Government Pleoder oppeoring for lhe respondents contended thot the proposol is submilted by the District Collector to the Chief Commissioner of Lond Administrotion. Bul, so for the Chief Commissioner hos not rotified the suspension order of the petitioner. This Court.
hoving considered the rivol submissions mode by the porties, is of lhe considered view thot when ihe Chief Commissioner of Lond Adminislrolion hos not rotified the suspension order issued by the Dislrict Collector, the question of continuing the petilioner under suspension beyond three monlhs is conlrory lo the Rules. Therefore, the impugned order is lioble to be set oside ond the some is occordingly set oside. Accordingly, the wril petilion is ollowed. No cosls. Pending miscelloneous petilions, if ony, sholl stond closed. I SD/-K. VEN IAH I ASSISTANT RE TRAR //TRUE COPYi/ SECTI OFFICER To, '1 . The State of Telangana, Special chief Secretary, Revenue Department (Services ll), Secrelariat Buildings, Secretariat, Hyderabad. 2. The Chief Commissioner of Land Administration, Telangana State, Hyderabad. 3. The T. S. Election Commissioner, 5th Floor, Budha Bhavan' Hyderabad. Represented by its CEO. 4. The District Collector, Nalgonda, Nalgonda District 5, One CC to lr/s. B.
Rajeswari Advocate [OPUC] 6. Two CCs to GP for Services-ll, High Court for the State of Telangana at Hyderabad. [OUT] 7, Two CD Copies HIGH COURT DATED:1011212020 i:,:: t{e s TA ,t: 1 U z 2021 o 04 JAN a * * I-lc P,A,'i ORDER WP. No. 15840 of 2020 ALLOWING THE WP WITHOUT COSTS
Source: High Court for State of Telangana. Dataset: Dattam Labs. CC BY 4.0. Text extracted automatically; compare with the source PDF for layout and accuracy.