H. Jaganmohan Goud v. State Of Telangana,

The Hon'ble Sri Justice C.V.Nagarjuna Reddy Writ Petition No.37415 of 2015 Dated 18.11.2015 Between:

H.Jaganmohan Goud ... Petitioner and The State of Telangana rep. by its Principal Secretary Municipal Administration Dept., Hyderabad and 5 others .

...Respondents

Counsel for the petitioner: Mr.Rajagopallavan Tayi for Mr.Anand Babu Dronandula Counsel for respondent No.1: AGP for Municipal Administration (TS) Counsel for respondent Nos.2 to 4: None appeared Counsel for respondent Nos.5 & 6:AGP for Revenue (TS)

The Court made the following:

O r d e r :

The grievance of the petitioner, who claims to be one of the Directors of Sri Vaishu Developers Private Limited (hereinafter referred as 'the Company'), is the purported inaction of respondent No.2- Authority in initiating action against another Director of the Company for, allegedly, selling the plots in a neighbouring lay out by misleading the purchasers that those plots pertain to the approved lay out of the Company. The petitioner apprehends that under the provisions of the Andhra Pradesh Urban Areas (Development) Act, 1975, he being one of the Directors of the Company is also liable for prosecution along with the erring Director and that therefore, it is necessary for respondent No.2 to take action against the said Director, who is, allegedly, indulging in illegal sale of plots pertaining to a different lay out.

In my opinion, once the petitioner has brought to the notice of respondent No.2 that he is not responsible for the illegal sale of plots, there is no possibility of the petitioner being prosecuted for the alleged illegality committed by another Director. Therefore, the inaction of respondent No.2 would not, in any manner, affect the interests of the petitioner. However, as the petitioner claims to have brought the alleged illegality of his Co-Director to the notice of respondent No.2, the latter is directed to examine the same and initiate appropriate action in accordance with law, if it finds truth in the allegations made by the petitioner.

Subject to the above observations and directions, the Writ Petition is disposed of.

As a sequel to disposal of the Writ Petition, WPMP.No.48147 of 2015, filed by the petitioner for interim relief, is disposed of as infructuous.

______________________ (C.V.Nagarjuna Reddy, J) Dt: 18th November, 2015 LUR