Fishermen Cooperative Society v. The District Collector, Nalgonda, Nalgonda District & Ors.
Case at a glance
- Order date
- 08 Aug 2011
- Bench
- C V NAGARJUNA REDDY
Provisions considered
- APCS Act, 1964
- Constitution of India arts. 14, 19, 21
Judgment
Cause title
PRESENT: THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY WRIT PETITION No.17864 of 2011 Between: Fishermen Cooperative Society Miryalaguda, Nalgonda District. And The District Collector, Nalgonda, Nalgonda District & others. … Petitioner
Respondents
Counsel for the petitioner: Ms. M. Vidyavathi This Court made the following: THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY WRIT PETITION No.17864 of 2011
ORDER:-
This Writ Petition is filed for the following substantive relief: the Assistant Director
… Hon’ble Court may be pleased to issue a writ or direction more particularly one in the nature of writ of Mandamus declaring the order Memo. No.09/C/2010-11, dated 24.06.2011 is arbitrary and contrary to provision of the APCS Act, 1964 and G.O.Ms.No.776, dated 31.12.1990 apart from violation of principles of natural justice and also offends Articles 14, 19 and 21 of the Constitution of India.
of Fisheries, Suryapet, At the hearing, Ms. M. Vidyavathi, learned counsel for the petitioner, submitted that as the period for which the relief is claimed has expired, the cause in the Writ Petition does not survive for adjudication. The Writ Petition is accordingly disposed of as infructuous. As a sequel to disposal of the Writ Petition as infructuous, WPMP.No.21486 of 2011 filed by the petitioner for interim relief is also disposed of as infructuous. Date: 08.08.2011 ES ____________________________ C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY, J
Questions this judgment answers
Which statutory provisions did this judgment involve?
APCS Act, 1964; Constitution of India — arts. 14, 19, 21.
Which court decided this case, and when?
Andhra Pradesh High Court, on 08 Aug 2011. The bench was C V NAGARJUNA 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.