Writ Petition No. 10646 of 1995 · Andhra Pradesh High Court
Case at a glance
- Decided
- 25 Aug 2004
- Bench
- N V RAMANA
Provisions considered
Judgment
Cause title
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 an order, direction or writ, particularly one in the nature of writ of mandamus calling for the records pertaining to G.O.Ms.No. 31 Animal Husbandry and Fisheries (Fish.II) Department, dated 27.3.1995 in introducing temporary licensing system for the fasli year 1404 in respect of Shazada tank of Cheruvumadharam village and declare the same as illegal, arbitrary, unjust and unconstitutional besides being violative of provisions of the A.P. Cooperative Societies Act, 1964 and A.P. Fisheries Department manual. Counsel for the Petitioner: MR.D.GOVARDHANACHARY Counsel for the Respondent Nos.1 to 3: Govt. Pleader for A.H. & Fisheries. Counsel for Respondent Nos. 4 to 8: Mr. T.L.K.Sharma. The Court made the following : THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE N.V. RAMANA
WRIT PETITION NO.10646 OF 1995
ORDER:
Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the subject matter of the writ petition has become infructuous. The writ petition is accordingly dismissed as having become infructuous. No costs. ________________ N.V.RAMANA, J. ASSISTANT REGISTRAR Date: 25th August, 2004. CS/TVK //TRUE COPY// SECTION OFFICER To
The Prl. Secretary to Government, A.H. and Fisheries Department, Government of Andhra Pradesh, Secretariat, Hyderabad.
The Commissioner of Fisheries, Government of Andhra Pradesh, Tank Bund Road, Hyderabad.
The Assistant Director of Fisheries, Khammam.
Two C.Cs. to the Government Pleader for Fosheries, High Court Buildings, Hyderabad. (O.U.T.)
Two C.D.copies.
Questions this judgment answers
Which statutory provisions did this judgment involve?
Constitution of India — art. 226; A.P. Cooperative Societies Act, 1964.
Which court decided this case, and when?
Andhra Pradesh High Court, on 25 Aug 2004. The bench was N V RAMANA.
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.