At Secretariat, Hyderabad v. Venkatadripalem Village, Miryalguda lVlandal, Nalgonda District
Case at a glance
Outcome
Dismissed
counsel, this Writ Petition is dismissed as inlr rctuous
Provisions considered
Judgment
Cause title
Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of lndia praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed therewith, the High Court may be pleased to issue a Writ of lt4andamus or any other appropriate Writ or Writs, Order or Direction, declaring the action of 2nd Respondent in not withdrawing Circular Letter dt 24.2.2015 in C.No. 1 55/D5-DCRB/2015 issued against the petitioner, as illegal, arbitrary, unsustainable and also contrary to the order dt. 13.9.2015 passed by this Honble Court in Crl.P.No. 8908 of 2015 Award costs l.A. NO: I OF 2016( WPMP. NO: 2683 OF 2016) Petition under Section '1 5'1 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased to issue lnterim directions to the 2nd Respondent to forthwith withdraw the Look Out Circular dt 24.2.2015 in C.No.155iD5-DCRB/2015 issued agalnst the petitioner. pending disposal of W.P. Counsel for the Petitioner: MS. SWATHI, REPRESENTING SRI K. RAGHUVEER REDDY Counsel for the Respondent Nos.'l and 2: SRI R. LAXMIKT\ JTH REDDY, AGP FOR HOMI: Counsel for the Respondent No.3: SRI M. V. HANUMANTFI, , RAO The Court made the following:
ORDER .:
i THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE N.TUKARAMJI WRIT PETITION No.2l15 OF 2016 ORDER This writ petition is hled seeking for the follorving relief: "to issue a Writ of Mandamus or any other appropriate Writ or Writs, Order or Direction, declaring the action of 2nd Respondent in not withdra\ring CircuLar Letter dt 24.2.2015 in C.No. I 5 5/D5-DCRB/2015 issued agai st the petitioner, as ilLegal, arbitrary, unsuslainable and also contrary to the order dt. 13.9.2015 passed by this onble Court in Crl.P.No. 8908 of2015 Award costs" -
2. Heard Ms.Swathi, leamed counsel representing Mr. K.Raghuveer Reddy, learned counsel lor the petitioner and Mr l I R.Laxmikanth Reddy, leamed Assistant Govemment Pleader for Home appearing for respondent Nos. 1 and 2.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the cause in this Writ petition does not survive for adjudication and seeks to dismiss this Writ Petition as infructuous.
4. Learned Assistant Goverrrment Pleader takes no objection to the same. 2
Operative part
5. Recording the submissions of both he leamed counsel, this Writ Petition is dismissed as inlr rctuous. No Miscellaneous Petitions, pending if anl . shall stand closed. SD/- U. SUDHA ASS I JTANT REGISTRAR i_- SECTION OFFICER //TRUE COPY// \ To, TJ IVNNT o
One CC to Sri K. Raghuveer Reddy, Advocate [OPUQ] i. i;; cct to-op ror {o.e, Higr' Court for the State of '-' langana' at a iii,i'cti]Sii N,'i 'v Hanumantha Rao, Advocate [oPlJ )l 4. Two CD CoPies Hvderabad [OUTI HIGH COURT DATED:1810812025 \ \ I ORDER WP.No.21 15 of 2016 5, , .r, 2 3 BEr 2P5 a- J -) ,) t DISMISSING THE WRIT PETITION AS INFRUCTUOUS WITHOUT COSTS ,rf \1
Questions this judgment answers
What did the Court decide in this case?
The Court recorded the following disposition: counsel, this Writ Petition is dismissed as inlr rctuous
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.