Judgment · High Court
Case at a glance
Outcome
Disposed of
Writ petition is disposed of accordingly, No costs
Provisions considered
- Constitution of India arts. 19(i)(g), 21
Judgment
Operative part
ORDER The matter is coming up for admission. Heard Sri P. Sridhar Reddy, learned counsel representing writ petitioner and the learned Government Pleader for Industries and Commerece. This writ petition is filed for writ of mandamus declaring the inaction of the 1st respondent in disposing of the application dated 15th March, 2004 submitted by the petitioner for grant of freehold rights under Section 4(1) and (2) of the Azamabad Industrial Area (Termjination and Regulation of Leases) ( Amendment Act, 2000) in respect of 1000 quare yards in Plot No. 19/4, Block-A, Azamabad, Hyderabad as illegal, arbitrary, unjust and violative of Articles 19(i) (g) and Article 21 of the Constitution of India and consequently, direct the 1st respondent to forthwith consider and dispose of the above said application and pass such other suitable orders. Several facts had been narrated in the affidavit filed in support of the writ petition in paras 2 to 9. In the lights of the facts and circumstances, this Court is of the considered opinion that the writ petition be disposed of with a direction to the 1st respondent to consider and dispose of the application aforesaid within a period of four months from the date of rceipt of copy of this order. Writ petition is disposed of accordingly, No costs. 4th August,2009. KM ______________________ Justice P.S. Narayana THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE P.S.NARAYANA WRIT PETITION No. 15774 Of 2009 4th August, 2009.
Questions this judgment answers
What did the Court decide in this case?
The Court recorded the following disposition: Writ petition is disposed of accordingly, No costs
Which statutory provisions did this judgment involve?
Constitution of India — arts. 19(i)(g), 21.
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.