SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2025 Supreme(Online)(Tel) 39090

IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD
THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE N.TUKARAMJI
Bukya Ravi – Appellant
Versus
The State of Telangana – Respondent
WP 7360/2018



THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE N.TUKARAMJI WRIT PETITION No.7360 OF 2018

O R D E R:

This Writ Petition is filed under Article 226 of Constitution of India seeking the following relief/s:-

“…to issue a Writ, Order or direction, more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus, declaring the action of the 3rd Respondent in interfering with installation of Retail Outlet sanctioned to the Petitioner, by the 7th Respondent, under ST category, in the patta land in Sy No.22/E/3, extent 1111.11 Sq yards, out of total extent of Ac.0.25 1/2 guntas, situated in Shivunipally village accounts, Ghanpur (Station) Mandal, Jangaon District, as arbitrary, highhanded, illegal and contrary to law and consequently direct the 3rd Respondent not to interfere with installation of Retail Outlet of the Petitioner in the said land in Sy No.22/E/3, extent 1111.11 Sq yards in the light of No Objection Certificate in Rc.No.C/672/2017, dt.27.09.2017 issued by the Joint Collector / 5th Respondent, and with all other consequential benefits and pass......”

2. Heard Mr.Jagapathi, learned counsel for the petitioner, Mr.D.Pradeep, learned Assistant Government Pleader for Home appearing for respondent Nos.1 to 3 and Mr.Dominic Fernandes, learned Standing Counsel for respondent No.7/BPCL.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that as respondent No. 3 has been interfering with the installation of a Retail Outlet of Bharat Petroleum Corporation Limited, Warangal, at the instance of its Territory Manager/respondent No.7, the present writ petition has been filed seeking appropriate directions from this Court.

4. The learned Assistant Government Pleader for Home and the learned Standing Counsel appearing for respondent No. 7 submit that the Retail Outlet was sanctioned in the year 2019, and operational permission has already been granted by the competent authorities and the outlet is functional as on this date. Hence, it is submitted that the contention raised by the petitioner does not survive for consideration.

5. I have perused the material placed on record.

6. Having regard to the submissions made by both sides and in view of the developments that have taken place during the pendency of this writ petition, it is evident that the grievance of the petitioner has been effectively redressed. Consequently, nothing further remains for adjudication in this matter.

7. Accordingly, the writ petition is dismissed as infructuous, leaving it open to the petitioner to avail appropriate remedies available under law including revival of this petition, if the cause of action still survives. There shall be no order as to costs. Miscellaneous Petitions, pending if any, shall stand closed.

__________________ N.TUKARAMJI, J Date: 03-11-2025 mmr THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE N.TUKARAMJI WRIT PETITION No.7360 OF 2018 Dated: 03.11.2025 mmr

Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top