G.Neeharika v. District
Case at a glance
Outcome
Dismissed
Accordingly, the Writ Petition is dismissed as infructuous
Provisions considered
- Constitution of India art. 226
Judgment
Cause title
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 of mandamus or any other writ order or direction directing the respondents 1 and 2 to treat and recognize the petitioner as a candidate belonging the Schedule caste category(SC- C) for the purpose of counseling and admissions in to Eam-Cet-2007 and further direct the respondents to recognize the community Certificate issued by the 3rd respondent as valid for all other purposes thereafter. Counsel for the Petitioner: MR.S.NIRANJAN REDDY Counsel for the Respondents: MR.D.V.NAGARJUNA BABU The Court made the following: THE HON'BLE MS JUSTICE G.ROHINI
WRIT PETITION NO.15654 of 2007
ORDER:
Operative part
It is represented by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the cause in the Writ Petition does not survive. Accordingly, the Writ Petition is dismissed as infructuous. No costs. 29th April 2009 RRB ____________
(G.ROHINI, J)
Questions this judgment answers
What did the Court decide in this case?
The Court recorded the following disposition: Accordingly, the Writ Petition is dismissed as infructuous
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 Apr 2009. The bench was G ROHINI.
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.