Gai. Venkat Narsaiah And Another v. The Telangana State Northern Power Distribution Company Limited And 2 Others

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE ABHINAND KUMAR SHAVILI WRIT PETITION No.17922 of 2019 ORDER:

This writ petition is being disposed of at the admission stage with the consent of both parties.

2.

This writ petition is filed seeking a writ of Mandamus declaring the action of the respondents in not providing the employment to the son of the 1st petitioner pursuant to the acquisition of the land admeasuring Ac.4.00 in Sy.Nos.2500 and 2501 for construction of 33/11 KV substation and 132/33 KV substation at Nekkonda Village in spite of the recommendations of the 2nd respondent as illegal, unjust, arbitrary and violation of Articles 14 and 21 of the Constitution of India and sought a consequential direction to direct the respondents to provide employment to the 1st petitioner's son as Substation Operator.

3.

Heard Sri G. Praveen Kumar, learned counsel for the petitioners and Sri Zakir Ali Danish, learned Standing Counsel appearing for the respondents.

4.

It has been contended by the 1st petitioner that the respondents have acquired his land to an extent of Ac.4.00 in Sy.Nos.2500 and 2501 for construction of 33/11 KV substation and 132/33 KV substation at Nekkonda village during 1982 and the State Government has framed a policy to provide employment to land oustees vide G.O.Ms.No.98, dated 15.04.1985, but the respondents are not considering his request to provide employment to the 2nd petitioner

under the said policy. The 1st petitioner further submits that the 2nd respondent has recommended the case of the 1st petitioner for providing employment to the 2nd petitioner under Land Losers Quota, but the 1st respondent is not acting on the said recommendation made by the 2nd respondent. Therefore, learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that appropriate orders be passed in the writ petition directing the 1st respondent to consider the recommendations made by the 2nd respondent on 19.06.2018 and pass appropriate orders in accordance with law.

5.

Learned Standing Counsel appearing for the respondents had contended that the 1st respondent shall consider the case of the petitioners and appropriate orders would be passed on the recommendations made by the 2nd respondent.

6.

This Court, having considered the rival submissions of the learned counsel for respective parties, is of the considered view that this writ petition can be disposed of directing the 1st respondent to pass appropriate orders on the recommendations submitted by the 2nd respondent on 19.06.2018 in accordance with law, within a period of eight weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. 7.

With these observations, the writ petition is disposed of. Miscellaneous petitions pending, if any, shall stand closed. No order as to costs.

______________________________ ABHINAND KUMAR SHAVILI, J 20th August 2019 mar