Mohammed Mansoor Ali v. The Principal Secretary To Government

HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA: AT HYDERABAD MONDAY, THE THIRTEENTH DAY OF JUNE TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY TWO PRESENT THE HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE SATISH CHANDRA SHARMA AND THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE B.VIJAYSEN REDDY WRIT APPEAL NO: 323 OF 2022 Writ Appeal under Clause 15 of the Letters Patent preferred against the order dated 2510312022 passed in W P No 79OG of 2021 , on the file of the High Court. Between:

1 . Mohammed Mansoor Ali, S/o Mahmood Ali, Aged about 29 years, Occ Farmer, Ri/o Durajpally Village, Chivemla Mandal, Suryapet District.

2. Mohammed Maqsood Ali, S/o Mahmood Ali, Aged aboul 27 years, Occ Farmer, R/o Durajpally Village, Chivemla Mandal, Suryapet District. ...AppellantsMrit Petitioners AND '1 . The Principal Secretary to Govemment, State of Telangana, Horticulture Department, Secretariat, Hyderabad.

2. The Commissioner of Horticulture, Government of Telangana, Hyderabad

3. The District Collector, Suryapet District.

4. The District Horticulture Officer, Suryapet Oistrict.

5. The Assistant Director of Horticulture, Suryapaet, SuryapetDistrict.

6. The Assitant Director of Horticulture - ll, Nalgonda.

7. M/s Pipes and Flows Products, Pune, (Empanelled by the Government Telangana), Maharashtra State.

...Respondents/Respondents

lA NO: 1 OF 2022 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 to take appropriate steps for construction of Green poly house structure with Poly film by respondent No.7 as per Triparty agreement dt-25.6.2016, on the property of the petitioners pending disposal of the above writ appeal in the interest of justice and equity.

/ Counsel for the Appellants: SRI THANNERU CHAITANYA KUMAR Counsel forthe Respondent Nos.1 to 6: GP FOR AGRICULTURE Counsel for the Respondent No.7: SRI ALI FAROOQ The Court delivered the following:

Ii iI

/ THE H SIIARMA THE CHIEF' JUSTICE SATISH CIIANDRA AND THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE B.VIJAYSEN REDDY WRIT APPEAL No.323 of 2022 JIIDGMENT: per the Hon bte the Ctuef Justrce Sati.sh Ctandra Sham&) The present writ appeal is arising out of an order dated 25.O3.2022 passed by the learned Single Judge in W.P.No.7906 of 2021.

The facts of the case reveal that the appellants (writ petitioners) carne up before this Court for issuance of an appropriate writ, order or direction directing the respondents to take appropriate steps for construction of Green Polyhouse structure with poly films which were damaged, keeping in view the Tri-partite Agreement dated 25.06.2016. The appellants also stated in the writ petition that their representations are not being decided. The learned Single Judge has declined to interfere w"ith the writ petition on the ground that disputed questions of fact are involved i.e., whether the damage is caused or \ \

not/appellants are entitled for construction of Green Polyhouse structure or not.

The learned Single Judge, while disposing of the writ petition, has reproduced Clause 10.9 ol the Deed of Agreement dated 25.06.20 16 and the same reads as under:- "It is further to be agreed by both thc parties that all differences and disputes if not resolved as above, shall be got remedied through the Court of l-aw of Hyderabad jurisdiction only."

In ttre considered opinion of this Court, in the light of the aforesaid clause under the agreement, the disputed questions of fact can be resolved by kil<ing recourse to the remedies available under the civil law. The learned Single Judge has already granted a liberty to approach the civil Court and therefore , in the considered opinion of this Court, as the disputed questions of fact cannot be resolved in the writ petition,

J the writ appeal stands disposed of with the liberty already granted by the learned Single Judge.

The miscellaneous applications pending, if any, shall stand closed. There shali be no order as to costs. SD/- B.SAWAVATHI DEPUTY REGISTRAR //TRUE COPY// li SE :[, Y).-- CER To,

1. One CC to SRI THANNERU CHAITANYA KUMAR, Advocate IOPUCI

2. One CC to SRI ALI FAROOQ, Advocate [OPUC] 3.TwoCCstotheGPforAgriculture,HighCourtfortheStateofTelangana. TOUTI

4. Two C.D. Copies

5. One Spare CoPY.

MRC NN \\{}

HIGH COURT DATED:1310612022

JUDGMENT

WA.No.323 ot 2022 P 2U2?

DISPOSING OF THE WRIT APPEAL WITHOUT COSTS .tfl2'

D\ rr"

4\--\..