Mohammed Abdul Quddus v. The State Of Telangana And 3 Others

HON'BLE SMT. JUSTICE LALITHA KANNEGANTI WRIT PETITION No.45168 of 2022 O R D E R:

This writ petition is filed seeking the following relief: "...to issue appropriate Writ order or direction more particularly one in the nature of Mandamus declaring the inaction on the part of Respondents Nos 2 to 4 in taking action on the petitioners representations dated 22/11/2022 Annexure - 1 requesting to cancel assessment obtained fraudulently by unofficial respondent vide PTIN No 1061602463 dated 25/03/2021 respect of door No 16 -2- 147/55/F/3 subject matter of OS No 217 of 2016 pending on the file of XIX Junior civil Judge City Civil Court Hyderabad as illegal arbitrary unconstitutional and contrary to the provisions of the H M 0 Act and Rules and Regulations made thereunder in gross violation of principles of natural justice and in flagrant violation of Articles 14 and 300A of the Constitution of India Consequently directing them to take action on petitioners representation dated 22/11/2022 in the interest of justice and to pass..."

2.

Learned counsel for the petitioner Sri. S. Mounis Abidi submits that the petitioner has given a representation to the official respondents on 22.11.2022 stating that the unofficial respondent has created a forged documents and on the basis of the same, he has got the property assessed and mutated his name in the revenue records. He submits that in this regard, the petitioner has filed O.S.No.217 of 2016 on the file of XIX Junior Civil Judge, City Civil Court, Hyderabad and the same is pending for consideration. He submits that bringing all these facts, petitioner has given the said representation but the same is not considered by the respondents. 3.

Learned Standing Counsel Mr. V. Praveen Kumar appearing for respondent Nos.2 & 3 submits that petitioner is referring to the civil disputes and the forged documents which the respondents cannot decide.

4.

The petitioner has given a representation on 22.11.2022 and if the same can be considered or within their jurisdiction, the respondents ought to have considered or else they should have informed the petitioner to avail the appropriate remedy available under law but so far the respondents have chosen not to consider the same.

5.

In view of the same, the Writ Petition is disposed of directing the respondents to consider the petitioner's representation and to pass appropriate orders in accordance with law. No order as to costs. Miscellaneous applications, pending if any, shall stand closed. __________________________ LALITHA KANNEGANTI, J 19th December , 2022 myk