← Library
High Court for State of TelanganaWP/19325/2012dismissed no costs

Tirumalareddi Animi Reddy, v. The Commissioner And Director Of Agriculture,

2015-08-12C.V.Nagarjuna Reddy4 pages

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT HYDERABAD

FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AND THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH * * * * CASE NO. W.P.No.19325 of 2012 Between:

Tirumalareddi Animi Reddy .. Petitioner and The Commissioner & Director of Agriculture, Hyderabad and others .. Respondents DATE OF JUDGMENT PRONOUNCED: 12.08.2015 SUBMITTED FOR APPROVAL:

THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY

1. Whether Reporters of Local newspapers Yes/No may be allowed to see the Judgments?

2. Whether the copies of judgment may be Yes/No marked to Law Reporters/Journals?

3. Whether Their Ladyship/Lordship wish to Yes/No see the fair copy of the Judgment?

THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY WRIT PETITION No.19325 of 2012 12.08.2015 Between:

Tirumalareddi Animi Reddy .. Petitioner and The Commissioner & Director of Agriculture, Hyderabad and others .. Respondents Counsel for the petitioner: Mr.V.Rao Padala for Mr.B.P.Raju Counsel for respondent Nos.1 and 2: Assistant Government Pleader for Agriculture (AP) Counsel for respondent No.3: None appeared Counsel for respondent No.4: Mr.B.Nalin Kumar The Court made the following:

ORDER:

This writ petition is filed for a mandamus to declare the action of respondent No.2 in not taking proper action against respondent No.4 as illegal and arbitrary.

The learned Assistant Government Pleader for Agriculture (AP) has placed before the Court, counter-affidavit, dated 11.08.2015, of respondent No.2, wherein it has, inter alia, enumerated various measures taken by it against respondent No.4, which include suspension of license of respondent No.4 and its eventual cancellation. It is further stated in the counter-affidavit that respondent No.4 availed appellate remedies against both the orders of suspension and also cancellation and secured interim orders by approaching this Court by way of writ petitions pending cancellation proceedings and also appeal. It is further stated that W.P.No.10109 of 2009 filed by respondent No.4 questioning primary as well as appellate authorities' orders of cancellation of its license is pending before this Court and that interim order, dated 20.05.2009, in W.P.M.P.No.13380 of 2009 suspending the order of cancellation of license of respondent No.4 has been passed in the said writ petition and the same is in operation as on today.

Though neither party has brought the status of W.P.No.10109 of 2009 to the notice of this Court, the information placed by the Registry shows that as far back as 09.10.2014, this Court has disposed of the said writ petition with certain observations. The observations relevant for the present purpose read as under:

"The order of cancellation, dated 06.05.2009, passed by the Licensing Authority itself states that by virtue of cancellation of license, the petitioner was disabled from applying for fresh license for a period of one year from the date of cancellation. That disability is ceased to have effect in view of subsequent circumstances and by virtue of the interim order passed by this Court, the original license remains operative and on that basis, the renewal of license is being granted to the petitioner. In view of the same, the adjudication of the issues involved in the writ petition becomes only academic and therefore, no adjudication is necessary; however, the respondents are at liberty to take necessary action if any violations are committed by the petitioner hereinafter."

From the above reproduced observations, it is clear that this Court has left liberty with the respondents to take necessary action if any violations are committed by respondent No.4. Having regard to this subsequent event, no further adjudication of this writ petition is necessary, except to reiterate the afore-extracted observations in W.P.No.10109 of 2009.

The Writ Petition is accordingly disposed of. As a sequel to disposal of the writ petition, W.P.M.P.No.24750 of 2012 filed by the petitioner for interim relief shall stand disposed of as infructuous.

__________________________ C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY, J 12th August, 2015 GHN