Shankar Reddy Dondeti v. The State of Telangana
Case at a glance
Provisions considered
- Constitution of India art. 226
- Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 s. 151
Key paragraphs
- Para 55. Having regard to the submissions made by learned counsel for the respective parties, it is undisputedly clear that the presenl impugned order dated 24.02.2025 was passed without issuing any notice and without affording any opportunity of hearing to th e petitioner. This Court as…
- Para 66. In view of the above, this Court deems it appropriate to set aside the impugned order dated 24.02.2025 and remand the matter back to respondent No.2 for taking appropriate action.
- Para 77 . Accordingly, the Writ petition is allowed setting aside the impugned order vide LT.No.TGTDC/ AMC/ct/6/2lo24 d.ated, 24.02.2025 passed by respondent No.2, and the matter is remanded back to respondent No.2 to pass appropriate orders strictly in accordance with law. Miscellaneous applications, if zrny, pending…
Judgment
Cause title
The State of Telangana, Rep. by its Principal Secretary, Tourism and Development Department, Secretariat Building, Hyderabad, Telangana State Telangana Tourism Development Corporation Limited, Rep by its Managing Director, Sri tV,Prakash Reddy, lPS, Himayathnagar, Hyderabad ...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 to issue a Writ, Order or direction particularly one in the nature of Writ of lVlandamus declaring the unilateral and untimed action of the Respondent No.2 in issuance of Notice d1.24.02.2025 vide LT.No.TGTDC/AMC/G1/612024 is illegal, arbitrary, unconstitutio na l, and against to the principal of natural justice and consequently direct the Respondents to recall the impugned notice d1.24.O2.2O25 vide LT.No.TGTDC/AMC/G1/612024 by suspending the same lA NO: 1 OF 2025 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 direct the Respondents not to proceed by enforcing the Notice d1.24.02.2025 vide LT.No.TGTDC/AMCIG11612024 by taking coercive steps against the petitioner, otherwise the petitioner will put to irreparable loss and hardship which cannot be compensated at later stage, pending disposal of the above writ petition Counsel for the Petitioner: SRl. K. V. L. JAYASIMHA Counsel for the Respondent No.1: GP FOR TOURISM Counsel for the Respondent No.2: SRI P. VENKATESHWAR RAO, SC FOR TGTDC The Court made the following: ORDER THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE PULLA KARTHIK WRIT PETITION No.71 OS of2o.25
ORDER:
Aggrieved by the cancelation of the a_llotment order dated
24.10.2025 vide impugned order vide LT.No.TGTDC/AMC/G 1/6/ 2024 dated 24.02.2025 passed by respondent No.2, the present Writ petition is filed.
Heard Sri K.V. L. ,Iayasimha, learned counsel appearing for the . petitioner, and Sri P. Venkateshwar Rao, learned Stalding Counsel for respondent No. 2-Telar-igana Tourism Development Corporation Limited. With their consent, the Writ Petition is taken up for disposal at admission stage.
Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that respondent No.2 had accorded permission for operations and management of one Banquet Hall and six Stalls at Neera Caf€, Necklace Road, Hyderabad, on monthly rental basis vide proceedings in LT.No.TGTDC/AMC/ Gll6/2024 dated 24.1O.2024. However, without issuing any notice or affording an opportunity to the petitioner to submit his explarration, respondent No.2 has unilaterally passed the present impugned order dated 24.O2.2025, canceling the earlier allotment order dated 2 PK, J W.P.)1o.7105 of 2025
24.10.2024. Therefore, learned counsel for the petitioner prays this Court to pass n€,cessary orders in the present writ petition
4.. Learned Standing Counsel for respondent No.2, rvhil: admitting the fact that the impugned order was issued !r ithout ilny notice, submits that respondent No.2 will issue a shorv-cause notice in accordance with 1aw.
Having regard to the submissions made by learned counsel for the respective parties, it is undisputedly clear that the presenl impugned order dated 24.02.2025 was passed without issuing any notice and without affording any opportunity of hearing to th e petitioner. This Court as well as the Hon'ble Apex Court, in catena of judgments, held that the principles of natural justice and the fundamental nghts of the parties of being heard before aly orders are passed are invic, lable. The Hon'ble Apex Court, in State Bank of India u. M.S. Basi & Ors.r, has categorically held that the an order is liabte to be set aside if no opportunity of hearing is afforded to the parties who arc adversely affected. ' (2004) 11 SCC 347 3 PK, J W.P.No.7105 of 2O2S
In view of the above, this Court deems it appropriate to set aside the impugned order dated 24.02.2025 and remand the matter back to respondent No.2 for taking appropriate action.
Accordingly, the Writ petition is allowed setting aside the impugned order vide LT.No.TGTDC/ AMC/ct/6/2lo24 d.ated, 24.02.2025 passed by respondent No.2, and the matter is remanded back to respondent No.2 to pass appropriate orders strictly in accordance with law. Miscellaneous applications, if zrny, pending in this writ petition, shall stand closed. No costs. //TRUE COPYII SD/. T. TIRUMALA DEVI ASSISTANT REGISTRAR To, ECTION OFFICER Hyderabad [OUTI 1 . The Princioal Secrefarv,.Jourism and Development Department, Secretariat ^ Buitd.ing, Hyder4bad, t'itungurJ ddiu.-vYvrvvrIrEr' :iH*HTfl l,b?5[::T'J",?ir.:fle1,:Xi:'#,,'""J,":?:ffJj,:orpdoration 3. One CC to SRt. r. v. r lnVfiSrnri_rn,'ni, rl"rffipucf 4. Two CCs to Gp FoR rouRrsM ,Hisii a;;"rt"f,i"tii stati of rerangana at 5. One CC to sRt. SRr p. vETKRTESHWAR RAO, SC FOR TGTDC topucl 6. Two CD Copies GJP1* B IVI 5 CC TODAY ,{B s tAl c' 1 ( f, 3 o 1 i r rglrf i o * HIGH COURT DATED:1110312025 ORDER WP.No.7105 of 2025 ALLOWING THE WRIT PETITION WITHOUT COSTS hl6 \
Precedent status how later indexed judgments have treated this case
No known negative treatment found in the Courts & Cases corpus.
This is a result about the indexed corpus, not a finding that the judgment remains good law. Coverage may be incomplete.