Colony, Hyderabad v. Afzalgunj
Case at a glance
- Bench
- NAGESH BHEEMAPAKA
Outcome
Dismissed
In view of the same, Writ Petition is dismissed
Provisions considered
Judgment
Cause title
DR.K Satish Kumar Reddy, S/o. Dr. K. Sekhar Reddy, Aged about 54 years, Occ: Denlal Sergon RVo- Plot No. 83, Phase - l, Kambtap-uri Colony, Srinagai Colony, Hyderabad. ...PETITIONER
AND 1 The State of Andhra Pradesh, Rep.by its Principal Secretary, Medical and Health Department, Secretariat Building, Secretarial, Hyderbbad.
2. The Returning Officer for DCl, and APSDC Elections And Dlrector of Medical Education (Academic) Koti, Hyderabad.
3. The. Dental Council of lndia,, Aiwan-E-Galib lVarg, Kotl6 Road, New Delhi - 'l10 OO2, rep.by its Secretary.
4. The A.P. State Dental Council, Government Dental College, New Building, Afzalgunj, Hyderabad - 500 012, rep.by its Registrar. ...RESPONDENTS
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 any appropriate writ, order or direction particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus, declaring the Circular Dt. 4.3.2014 issued by 2nd respondent in canceling the election notification issued for the 3'd respondent National Body i.e., Dental Council of lndia as illegal, arbitrary and unreasonable and also contrary to the provrsion of the Dentist Act 1948 and set-askje the same and consequently direct the respondents to proceed with the conducting of elections to the 3rd respondent body as per Election Final Notification vide Gazett No. 300, Dt. 19.12.2O13 and Gazett No. 17, Dt. 17.1.2O14 i j i : i ! i I I i I I I I I I I I I .. l.A. NO: I OF 20'16(WPMP. NO:1 35't4 0F 2016) Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased to suspend the Circular Dt. 4.3.2014 issued by the 2nd respondent and proceed with the conducting of elections to the 3rd respondent body as per Election Final Notification vide Gazett No..300, DI. 19.12.2013 and Gazett No. 17, Dt. 17.1 .2014, pending disposal of the above writ petition Counsel for the Petitioner: SRI SUDARSHAN MALUGARI Counsel for the Respondent Nos.1 and 2: GP FOR MEDICAL HEALTH & FW Counsel for the Respondent Nos.3 and 4: SRI P VISHNUVARDHANA REDOY (sc FoR Dcl) The Court made the following: ORDER HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE NAGESH BHEEMAPAKA WRIT PETITION No.1O737 of2O16
ORDER:
None appeared for the Petitioner.
2. l,earned Government Pleader for appearing for respondents submits that the grievance relates to the election notification of the year 2Ol4 and the cause of action does not survive any longer and therefore the matter has become infructuous.
Operative part
3. In view of the same, Writ Petition is dismissed as infructuous. No costs.
4. Consequently, miscellaneous applications pending, if any, in this Writ Petition, shall stand closed' //TRUE COPY// SD/- K.SREERAMA MURTHY ASSISTANT REGISTRAR SECTIO OFFICER
One CC to Sri Sudarshan tvlalugari, Advocate [OPUCI 2. Two CCs to Gp for n1eOicai'ilJirtn a famiiy Wbrfare, High Court for the State a One dC"to Sri P. Vishnuvardhana'Reddv(SC 4. Two CD CoPies of Telangana, at HYderabad [OUT] tor DCI) [OPUC] To, TJ GJP ( ! HIGH COURT DATED:1710212025 ORDER WP.No.10737 ot 2016 ( I '(*€ SI* g.s )( 17 JuN ?$6 i .at * Fs P .-t- 2J DISMISSING THE WRIT PETITION AS INFRUCTUOUS WITHOUT COSTS o (* aO f t)
Questions this judgment answers
What did the Court decide in this case?
The Court recorded the following disposition: In view of the same, Writ Petition is dismissed
Which statutory provisions did this judgment involve?
Constitution of India — art. 226; Dentist Act, 1948; Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 — s. 151.
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.