Smt.Qamar Sultana v. Department), Secretariat, Tank Bund, Hyderabad
Case at a glance
- Bench
- GOPALA KRISHNA TAMADA
Outcome
Dismissed
Hence the Writ Petition is dismissed for non prosecution
Provisions considered
Judgment
Cause title
Between: Smt. Qamar Sultana, W/o Mirza Md. Ali, Stardisation,V.B.R.I., Rajendranagar, R.R.District. AND ..... PETITIONER
1 Government of Andhra Pradesh, Rep. by its Secretary (A.H.& Fisheries Department), Secretariat, Tank Bund, Hyderabad. 2 Deputy Director (AH), Standardisation Division, of Biological Products, Rajendranagar, R.R.district. 3 Margadarsi Chit Funds Pvt. Limited, Rep. by its Principal Officer, P.V.Rama Rao, F-202, IInd Floor, Kabra Complex, Secunderabad. 4 S.R.Chit Funds, Rep. by its Margh, 5-11, Chanion Nagar, Hyderabad. .....RESPONDENT(S)
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 Writ, direction or order more particularly in the nature of Writ of Mandamus declaring the impunged memo. Roc. No.22/SDBP/99 dt.19-1-99 issued by Resp.2 as being illegal, arbitrary and violative of Arts,14, 21 and const. of India of Order 21 Rule 48(2) of C.P.C. and conseuqently quash the impugned memo and pending disposal of the W.P. this Hon'ble Court may be pleased to suspend the impugned memo. Roc. No.22/SDBP/99, dt.19-1-99 and pass Counsel for the Petitioner:MR.VIJAY ASHRIT Counsel for the Respondent No.: GP FOR FISHERIES The Court made the following : THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE GOPALA KRISHNA TAMADA
WRIT PETITION NO : 2142 of 1999
ORDER:
Operative part
Yesterday i.e. on 01.06.2009 when the matter was taken up for hearing, the learned counsel for the petitioner was absent. Hence the matter was directed to be listed under the caption for dismissal today. Even today also when the matter is taken up for hearing, the learned counsel for the petitioner is absent and there is no representation on his behalf. Hence the Writ Petition is dismissed for non prosecution. No order as to costs. ---------------- 02.06.2009 THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE GOPALA KRISHNA TAMADA WRIT PETITION NO : 2142 of 1999
02.06.2009 Kvsn
Questions this judgment answers
What did the Court decide in this case?
The Court recorded the following disposition: Hence the Writ Petition is dismissed for non prosecution
Which statutory provisions did this judgment involve?
Constitution of India — art. 226; Code of Civil Procedure, 1908.
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.