LAWS(TLNG)-2020-9-132

M. LAKSHMI Vs. TSRTC

Decided On September 16, 2020
M LAKSHMI Appellant
V/S
Tsrtc Respondents

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Mr. Maddileti, the learned counsel for the appellant, submits that he had raised a contention before the learned Single Judge that, in fact, there is an empty land lying behind his shops. Therefore, the respondents should be directed to grant a licence to run his shops from that empty land. However, the said contention has neither been recorded, nor adjudicated, upon by the learned Single Judge.

(2.) In catena of cases, the Hon'ble Supreme Court has clearly opined that in case a contention has been raised before the Court, but it is not reflected in the impugned order, the only remedy available to the aggrieved party is to file a review petition before the concerned Court.

(3.) Since the contention raised by the learned counsel for the appellant before the learned Single Judge is not recorded in the impugned order, the only remedy obviously available to the appellant is to file a review petition before the learned Single Judge. Once this aspect has been pointed out to the leaned counsel for the appellant, he seeks liberty to file a review petition before the learned Single Judge.