Pathivada Chinnam Naidu v. The Prl. District Munsif-Chodavaram (Election Tribunal under A.P
Case at a glance
Provisions considered
Judgment
Cause title
Co-op. Societies Act 1 of 1964) chodavaram, 2. Sri T. Ramarao, Head Master Somalingapalem (Election Officer) Yellamanchili (M), Visakhapatnam Dist. 3. Gollavilli Swami Naidu S/o late Kasulu R/o Medivada (V), Ravikamatham (M),Visakhapatnam Dist. ....RESPONDENTS
Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed herein the High Court may be pleased to issue rule nisi calling for the entire records lading up to and inclusive of the impugned order passed by the 1st respondent herein in I.A.No.230 of 1997 in E.O.P.No.3 of 1995 dt: 9-5-1997 and quash the said order passed in I.A.No.230 of 1997 in E.O.P.No.3 of 1995; by issuing an appropriate Writ, order or direction, more particularly one in the nature of Certiorari. Counsel for the Petitioner: MR.E.V.BHAGIRATHA RAO Counsel for the Respondent No.1: GP for COOPERATION Counsel for the Respondents 2: None appeared Counsel for the Respondent No.3: Mr.Nuty Rammohan Rao, Advocate. The Court made the following:
O R D E R:
As can be seen from the averments made in the affidavit and the prayer, the matter relates to the elections of the year 1995. The Writ Petition has become infructuous and accordingly, it is dismissed. No costs. Dated: 22-12-2004. P.S. NARAYANA, J Ccm __________________ To
The Prl. District Munsif-Chodavaram (Election Tribunal under A.P. Co-op. Societies Act 1 of 1964) chodavaram,
The Head Master (Election Officer), Somalingapalem, Yelamanchali Mandal, Dist. Visakhapatnam. 3. 2 CCs to GP for Cooperation, High Court Buildings, Hyderabad (OUT)
2 CD copies.
Questions this judgment answers
Which statutory provisions did this judgment involve?
A.P. Co-op.Societies Act; Constitution of India — art. 226.
Which court decided this case, and when?
Andhra Pradesh High Court, on 22 Dec 2004. The bench was P S NARAYANA.
Precedent status how later indexed judgments have treated this case
No known negative treatment found in the Courts & Cases corpus.
This is a result about the indexed corpus, not a finding that the judgment remains good law. Coverage may be incomplete.