Smt.Kahekashan sultana v. The State of Telangana
Court: High Court for State of Telangana
Bench: P NAVEEN RAO
Judgment date:
Case summary
High Court for State of Telangana judgment dated 2020-07-01. Smt.Kahekashan sultana v. The State of Telangana. Read the judgment and case details on LawSphereX.
Judgment text
HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) WEDNESDAY ,THE FIRST DAY OF JULY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY PRESENT THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE P. NAVEEN RAO WRIT PETITION NO: 9579 OF 2020 Between: Smt. Kahekashan Sultana, W/o late Shaik Khaliq Hussaiah, aged 46 years, occ. House wife, R/o H. No. 5-4-85/F/6, Tayyabnagar, Ramaiah Bouli street, fvlahabubnagar. ... PETITIONER AND 1. The State of Telangana, Rep by its Principal Secretary Prohibition and Excise Department Secretariat Buildings, Hyderabad. 2. The Commissioner of Prohibition and Excise, State of Telangana Abkari Bhavan Nampally Road, Hyderabad. 3. The District Prohibition and Excise Officer, Vikarabad, District. 4. The Thasildhar, Ir,ila habu bnagar, Urban Mandal Mahabubnagar, 5. Smt. Shareefa Bee, W/o Late Shaik Khaliq Hussain age. 40 years Occ. Huse vife, H. No. 5-1 -61, allabhnagar, Mahabubnagar. ...
RESPONDENTS Petition under Article 226 oi the Constitution of lndia praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed therewith, the High Court may be pleased to issue a Writ Order or Direction more particularly one in the nature of writ of mandamus declaring the proceedings of the Respondent No. 3 request Rejection lntimation vide Rc No. A/3/695/2019 dated 28-12-2020 the action of the respondent No. 4 as arbitrary illegal discriminatory malafide and unconstitutional violating Articles 14 16 and 21 of the Constitution of lndia apart from following the Principles of Natural Justice as well as contrary to the A P/Telangana State Subordinate Service Rules and set aside the same and issue consequential direction directing the respondents not appoint the respondent No. 5. lA NO: 1 OF 2020 '1 Petition under Section 51 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased to direct the Respondent No.
1 to 3 not to consider the Respondent No. 5 for compassionate appointment pending disposal of the above writ petition. lA NO: 2 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 operation of the proceedings Request Rejection Intimation vide Rc No. 4/3/695/2019 daled 28-12-2020 issued by the Respondent No. 3. Counsel for the Petitioner: SRl. G. RAJESHWAR RAO Counsel for the Respondent Nos. 1 to 4: GP FOR PROHIBITION EXCISE Counsel forthe Respondent No. 5: NONE APPEARED The Court at the stage of admission made the following: ORDER THI} FION'BLE SRI JUSTICE P. NAVEE-Y RAO WRIT PETITION No. 9579 OF 2O2O ORDER: Heard lcarned counsel for the petitioner ard learned Government Pleader for Prohibition and Excise.
2, Petitioner applied to the District Prohibition and Excise Officer, Mahabubnagar, to provide employment on compassionate grounds on t:re death of her husband Late Shaik lihaliq Hussain oo 28. O4. 2079. From the rejection intimation dat,:d 128. 12. 2O19, impugned ir,l this writ petition, it appears, the Dist:ict Prohibition and Excise Oificer directed the petitioner to I -rrnish certain documents. Fetitioner sought some more timc stating that petitioner applied to the revenue authorities, but so lar lhe revenue authorities have not furnished the documents. Rejecting the request of the petitioner, order was passed on 28. 12. 2019. From the reading of the order, it appears, the Tahsildar, l'lahabubnagar, vide his letter, dated 2O. O9 . 2019 , already issuecL endorsement against petitioner. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner fairly sulrmits that the Tahsildar vide his endorsement, referred to abovr:, re. jected the request of the petitioner to grant legal heir certific:.
te {itating that first wife of the husband of the petitioner already obtained such certificate. Lcarned counsel also states that petitioner has instituted suil and the same is pending. 4. Since peritioner does not have the legal heir certificate, rejection of request for provision of employment on :ornpassionate grounds cannot be faulted. Therefore, there is no error in the order passed by the District Prohibition and Excise Oflicer. However, if the petitioner succeeds before the civil Court in establishing that she is the legal heir of late Shaik Khaliq Hussain, it is open to the petitioner to submit fresh application requesting to provide employment on compassionate grounds. As and when such application is made, it is open to the competent authority to consider the request of the petitioner, subject to fulfillment of all other parameters to provide employment on compassionate grounds. 5. The writ petition is accordingly disposed of.
Pending Miscellaneous Petitions, if any, shall stand closed. SD/-CH. VENKATESW LU ASSISTANT E TRAR ,TRUE COPY// SECTI N OFFICER To, '1 . The District Prohibition and Excise Officer, Vikarabad, District. 2. One CC to Sri G. Rajeshwar Rao Advocate [OPUC] 3. Two CCs to the GP for Services-lll, High Court for the State of Telangana at Hyderabad. (OUT) 4. Two CCs to the GP for Prohibition and Excise, High Court forthe State of Telangana at Hyderabad. (OUT) 5. Two CD Copies CHR ? HIGH COURT DATED:01 l07 t',2A20 ORDER W. P. No. 9579 of 2020 I r 1Ht ( J 14 ;ur 2tHl z o ,l * ,. $ . 5 .! t DISPOSING OF THE WRIT PETITION AT THE STAGE OF ADMISSION WITHOUT COSTS t,ctD ,19 1o
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.