Maddineni Chitanya v. Petition under
Case at a glance
- Decided
- 13 Jun 2007
- Bench
- G ROHINI
Provisions considered
- Constitution of India art. 226
Judgment
Petition under Article 226 of the constitution of India praying that in the circumstances stated in the Affidavit filed herein the High Court will be pleased to to issue any Writ order or direction more particularly a writ in the nature of Mandamus by declaring the inaction on the part of the official respondents on the representation, dated 02-7-2008 of the petitioner herein as arbitrary illegal and unconstitutional further direct the official respondents herein to take action against the 6th respondent' s liquor business in the name and style of Vijaya Sai Wines illegally at Plot No. 69 in the layout proceedings in Rc.No. C8-493/2007, dated 13-06-2007, Punadipadu Village, Kankipadu Mandal, Krishna District and pass Counsel for the Petitioner:MR.Y.SUBRAHMANYAM Counsel for the Respondent No.: GP FOR PROHIBIT ION & EXCISE T he Court made t he following : T HE HON’BL E MS JUST ICE G.ROHINI W.P.No.14683 of 2008 ORAL ORDER This writ petition is filed seeking a declaration that the inaction on the part of the respondents 1 to 5 in considering his representation dated.02-07-2008 complaining about the wine shop unauthorizedly being run by the 6th respondent in plot No.69 in the layout proceedings in Rc.No.C8-493/2007, of Punadipadu village, Kankipadu Mandal, Krishna Distirct, as arbitrary and illegal. I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Government Pleader for Prohibition and Excise appearing for the respondents 1 to 3. Keeping in view that the representation is pending before the respondents 1 to 5, without expressing any opinion as to the correctness of the allegation made by the petitioner, the writ petition disposed of with a direction to the respondents 1 to 5 to consider the representation of the petitioner dated.02-07-2008 and pass appropriate orders in accordance with law as expeditiously as possible preferably within a period of four (4) weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this Order. Needless to mention that before passing such order the 6th respondent shall be given an opportunity to make his representation. No costs. Dt.16 .10.2008 *T SNR _______________ G. ROHINI, J.
Questions this judgment answers
Which statutory provisions did this judgment involve?
Constitution of India — art. 226.
Which court decided this case, and when?
Andhra Pradesh High Court, on 13 Jun 2007. The bench was G ROHINI.
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.