✦ Andhra Pradesh High Court · 08 Dec 2004

M.Narasimha Rao v. Khammam

M NARAYANA REDDY

Case at a glance

Decided
08 Dec 2004
Bench
M NARAYANA REDDY

Provisions considered

Judgment

THE HON'BLE SRI DEVINDER GUPTA,THE CHIEF JUSTICE THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE M.NARAYANA REDDY WRIT PETITION NO : 25459 of 2001 Between: M.Narasimha Rao S/o.Late Ramaiah M.Narasimha Rao R/o. Sathupalli Khammam dist AND 1 The Registrar (Administration) High Court of A.P Hyderabad 2 The District & Sessions Judge Khammam 3 Senior Civil Judge Sathupalli Khammam District. ..... PETITIONER Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying that in the circumstances stated in the Affidavit filed herein the High .....RESPONDENT(S) Court will be pleased to declare the action of the respondents in imposing punishment of compulsory retirement and not treating the absence period from 23-8-96 to 2-5-97and suspension period from3- 5-97 to 31-5-99 as on duty as bad, void, ab-initio and contravenes to the provisions of Art.14, 16, 34 and Art.21 of the Constitution of India and QUASH the impugned proceedings in ROC No.183-B/99/C-II/1, dt.31-1-2000 by issuing Writ of CERTIORARI and call for the records relating to the above proceedings and pass such other order or orders as this Hon'ble Court may deem fit and proper. Counsel for the Petitioner: MISS. K.N.VIJAYA LAKSHMI (NOT PRESENT). Counsel for the respondents: C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY. The Court made the following :

O R D E R (per the Hon’ble Sri Devinder Gupta, the Chief Justice) None for the petitioner. It appears that petitioner is not interested. The writ petition is dismissed. No costs. DATE:08.12.2004 AVS/TVR -------------------------------- DEVINDER GUPTA, CJ -------------------------------- M.NARAYANA REDDY, J To 1 The Registrar (Administration) High Court of A.P Hyderabad 2 The District & Sessions Judge Khammam 3 Senior Civil Judge Sathupalli Khammam District.

4.

Two C.D. copies.

Questions this judgment answers

Which statutory provisions did this judgment involve?

Constitution of India — arts. 14, 16, 21, 34, 226.

Which court decided this case, and when?

Andhra Pradesh High Court, on 08 Dec 2004. The bench was M NARAYANA 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.

Why is this linked?

This is the original judgment text, reproduced from the public court record. Always verify it against the official record before relying on it in a filing — check it on Andhra Pradesh High Court or eCourts case status. ← Search more judgments