K.Samuel v. The District Judge, District & Sessions Court, Adilabad, Adilabad District
Case at a glance
- Decided
- 29 Dec 2004
- Bench
- M NARAYANA REDDY
Provisions considered
- Constitution of India art. 226
Judgment
Cause title
THE HON'BLE SRI DEVINDER GUPTA,THE CHIEF JUSTICE THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE M.NARAYANA REDDY
WRIT PETITION NO : 14567 of 2002 Between: K.Samuel S/o K.Daniel, Telugu Typist, Junior Civil Judge Court, Utnoor, Adilabad District, r/o Devapoor Village, Dharnuur (Pippri Post), Indravella Mandal, Adilabad District. ..... PETITIONER
AND The District Judge, District & Sessions Court, Adilabad, Adilabad District. .....RESPONDENT
Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying that in the circumstances stated in the Affidavit filed herein the High Court will be pleased to issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of writ of certiorari calling for the records relating to the impugned transfer proceedings Dis No.2120/2002/Admn dated 13-5- 2002 of the respondent and quash the same as null and void. Counsel for the Petitioner:MR.PETTEM RAJAIAH Counsel for the Respondent: SMT.M.BHASKARA LAKSHMI (SC FOR APHC) The Court made the following :
ORAL ORDER:
(per the Hon’ble the Chief Justice) In view of the counter affidavit filed by the respondents, the writ petition has been rendered infructuous and it is disposed of as such. ___________________ DEVINDER GUPTA, CJ 29-12-2004 _____________________ M.NARAYANA REDDY, J To
The District Judge, District & Sessions Court, Adilabad, Adilabad District.
2 CCs to the Standing Counsel for the High Court of A.P., High Court Buildings, Hyderabad (OUT).
The Section Officer, Legal Cell, High Court of A.P., Hyderabad. 2 CD copies.
Questions this judgment answers
Which statutory provisions did this judgment involve?
Constitution of India — art. 226.
Which court decided this case, and when?
Andhra Pradesh High Court, on 29 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.