Judgment · High Court
Case at a glance
- Bench
- CHELAMESWAR, M VENKATESWARA REDDY
Outcome
Dismissed
Recording the said submission of the learned counsel, the writ petition is dismissed
Provisions considered
- Constitution of India art. 226
Judgment
1 K.V.Ramana Murthy, S/o.K.S.R.Sastry, aged 55 years, Mandal Revenue Officer, Gurla, Vizianagaram district. 2 P.Pothuraju, S/o.Venkanna, aged 52 years, Mandal Revenue Officer, Kothuru, srikakulam. 3 K.Police, S/o.Late Satyam, aged 57years, Mandal Revenue officer, Merakamudidam, Vizianagaram district 4 G.Raghunadha sahu, S/o.Trinadha Sahu, aged 56 years, RDO's Office, Vizianagaram. 5 P.Appala Raju, S/o.Late Satyanarayana Raju, aged 54 years, Mandal Revenue Officer, Atchutapuram, Visakhapatnam District 6 A.Raghuram Chand, S/o.Kamalanadham, Mandal Revenue Officer, Baljipeta, Vizianagaram District. 7 B.Jagannadhara Rao, S/o.Appalaswamy, aged 55 years, Mandal Revenue Officer, Parvathipuram, Vizianagaram dist. 8 P.Bhaskara Rao. S/o.Kotla Rao. Aged 55 years, Mandal Revenue Officer, Jiyyammavalasa, Vizianagaram dist. 9 S.Vasudeva Rao. S/o.Narayana Rao, aged 56 years, Mandal Revenue Officer, Kotapadu, Visakhapatnam dist. 10 M.S.N.Raju, S/o.Krishna Murthy Raju, aged 56 years,. Mandal Revenue Officer, Gajapathinagaram, Vizianagaram Dist. 11 L.Garikivadu, S/o.Latchaiah, aged 46 years, Mandal Revenue Officer, Sompeta , Srikakulam District. 12 Ch.V.Ramana Murthy, S/o.Late Ramamurthy, aged 50 years, Mandal Revenue Officer, Nellimerla, Vizianagaram district. ..... PETITIONERS AND 1 Govt of A.P., Rep by its Prl. Secretary, Revenue , Secretariat Building, Hyderabad. 2 Chief Commissioner of Land Administration, A.P., Nampally, Hyderabad. 3 The District Collector, Vizianagaram. .....RESPONDENTS 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 May be pleased to issue any, writ, order or direction particularly one in the nature of writ of Certiorari calling for the records leading upto and including the Order dt.20- 04-2005 in O.A.No.1636 of 2005 and by nullifying the same allow the O.A. as prayed for directing the respondents to fix the inter- se-seniority of the applicants by evaluating the vacancy position in each panel year of the districts in Zone-I vis-a-vis the officiation among the rank Promotees and call for objections finalise the inter se seniority in Zone -I before the proposals are furnished to the D.P.C. Counsel for the Petitioner: DR.P.B.VIJAY KUMAR Counsel for the Respondent s : GP FOR SERVICES II The Court at the admission stage made the following :
Operative part
O R D E R The learned counsel for the petitioner seeks permission of the Court to withdraw the writ petition. Permission accorded. Recording the said submission of the learned counsel, the writ petition is dismissed as withdrawn. It is needless to mention that the interim orders granted earlier, if any, stand vacated. No costs. __________________ J. CHELAMESWAR,J M. VENKATESWARA REDDY, J _________________________ 16th June,2005 // true copy // SECTION OFFICER To
The Principal Secretary, Revenue, Secretariat buildings, Hyderabad, The Chief Commissioner of Land Administration, A.P. Nampally, Hyderabad, The District Collector, Vizianagaram, 2 C.Cs. to t he Govt. Pleader for Services-II, High Court buildings, Hyderabad (O.U.T.) The Registrar, A.P. Administrative Tribunal, Hyderabad. 2 C.D. copies
Questions this judgment answers
What did the Court decide in this case?
The Court recorded the following disposition: Recording the said submission of the learned counsel, the writ petition is dismissed
Which statutory provisions did this judgment involve?
Constitution of India — art. 226.
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.