K. Prabhakar Rao v. The Government of Andhra Pradesh, rep., by its
Case at a glance
Outcome
Withdrawn
petition is dismissed as withdrawn with liberty in terms of the
Provisions considered
Judgment
Operative part
Counsel for the petitioner : Shri P. Vinod Kumar. Dated: 1st May, 2007 Per G.S. SINGHVI, CJ In this petition filed in the name of public interest, the petitioner has made the following substantive prayer.
It is therefore prayed that this Hon’ble Court may be pleased to issue a writ or order more particularly one in the nature of writ of mandamus declaring restrain the 2nd respondent in proceedings with the construction at open space near D.No.3-1-212, Namboliadda, Opp: Sangam Hotel, Kachiguda, which is left open for road widening as illegal and in violation of basic civil and municipal law and pass such other order or orders as this Hon’ble Court may deem fit and proper in the circumstances of the case.
After arguing the case for some time, Sri P. Vinod Kumar, learned counsel for the petitioner made a request that his client may be permitted to withdraw the writ petition with liberty to file fresh one after taking recourse to the provisions of the Right to Information Act, 2005. The request of the learned counsel is accepted and the writ petition is dismissed as withdrawn with liberty in terms of the prayer made. As a sequel to dismissal of the writ petition as withdrawn, WPMP.No.12348 of 2007 filed by the petitioner for interim relief is disposed of as infructuous. G.S.SINGHVI, CJ Date: 01.05.2007 ES C.V.NNAGARJUNA REDDY, J
Questions this judgment answers
What did the Court decide in this case?
The Court recorded the following disposition: petition is dismissed as withdrawn with liberty in terms of the
Which statutory provisions did this judgment involve?
Right to Information Act, 2005.
Which court decided this case, and when?
Andhra Pradesh High Court, on 01 May 2007. The bench was C V NNAGARJUNA REDDY.
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.