M.Rathnamma v. The State Of Telangana

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE M.S.RAMACHANDRA RAO WP.No. 38585 of 2017 ORDER:

Petitioner's grievance is that she had preferred a appeal along with a stay application before the 2nd respondent challenging the grant of ORC to respondents 5 to 8 and that the 2nd respondent had dismissed the stay application on 06.09.2017 without assigning any valid reasons. 2.

The Government Pleader for Revenue appearing for respondents states that the very appeal preferred by the petitioner was 18 years after the ORC was issued to the respondents 5 to 8 and therefore the petitioner cannot expect grant of stay in these circumstances.

3.

After hearing the counsel for petitioner and the Government Pleader for Revenue appearing for respondents, I am satisfied that the order of the 2nd respondent dismissing the stay application on the ground that stay has been sought 18 years after the grant of ORC to the respondents 5 to 8, does not suffer from any error of jurisdiction warranting interference by this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.

4.

Accordingly, the Writ Petition is disposed of directing the 2nd respondent to decide the appeal preferred by the petitioner within a period of four (04) months from the date of receipt of a

copy of this order, after issuing notice to the respondents 5 to 8. No costs.

5.

Miscellaneous petitions, pending if any, shall stand closed.

______________________________ M.S.RAMACHANDRA RAO, J 16th November, 2017.

gra