Koshika Raju vs The State Of Telangana
2025 Latest Caselaw 2909 Tel

Telangana High Court

Koshika Raju vs The State Of Telangana on 7 March, 2025

            THE HON'BLE THE ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE SUJOY PAUL
                                   AND
                  THE HON'BLE SMT. JUSTICE RENUKA YARA

                             WRIT APPEAL No.97 of 2025

       JUDGMENT (Per the Hon'ble the Acting Chief Justice Sujoy Paul):

Sri Rapolu Bhaskar, learned counsel for the appellant

and Sri K. Laxmaiah, learned Standing Counsel for respondent

No.4.

2. The appellant/writ petitioner prayed for relief before the

writ Court for issuing the direction to respondent Nos.2 to 4 for

deciding the representations dated 04.07.2023, 05.07.2023 and

14.10.2024. Learned writ Court did not interfere in the writ

petition and permitted the appellant to avail the remedy under

the civil law.

3. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that as per

sub-section (15) of Section 172 of the Telangana Municipalities

Act, 2019 (for short, 'the Act'), the aforesaid representations

should have been decided by the authorities concerned.

4. It is trite that the writ of mandamus can be issued

provided, it is established that there exists an enabling provision

for preferring an application/appeal/representation and the

corresponding duty on the authorities concerned to decide it (see

Director of Settlements, A.P. v. M.R. Apparao 1, Bhartiya

(2002) 4 SCC 638

Kishan Sangh District Bhind v. Union of India 2, Municipal

Corpn. of Greater Mumbai v. Rafiqunnisa M.Khalifa 3 and

Indore Development Authority & Anr. V. Sansar Publication

Pvt. Ltd. 4).

5. In the instant case, despite repeated query from the

Bench, learned counsel for the appellant could not point out any

statutory provision which enables the appellant to prefer such a

representation and puts a corresponding duty on the authorities

to decide it. Sub-section (15) of Section 172 of the Act is not

pregnant with any such enabling provision of filing

appeal/representation nor does it cast any duty on the authority

to entertain and decide such representation. No other provision

is brought to our notice. Thus, we find no reason to interfere in

this appeal.

6. Accordingly, this Writ Appeal is dismissed. No costs.

Interlocutory applications, if any pending, shall also

stand closed.

___________________ SUJOY PAUL, ACJ

____________________ RENUKA YARA, J Date: 07.03.2025 Myk/Tsr

(2007) 4 MPLJ 548 (12)

(2019) 5 SCC 119

ILR 2019 MP 742 (DB)