Judgment · High Court
Case at a glance
- Bench
- A GOPAL REDDY
Provisions considered
- Constitution of India art. 226
Judgment
Cause title
Gunthuka Sailu, s/o Kesavulu, Prop. of Sri Venkateswara Saw Mill, Jangapalli Village, Gangadhara Mandal, Karimnagar District. AND ..... PETITIONER
1 Principal Chief Conservator of Forests, Andhra Pradesh, Hyderabad. 2 Divisional Forest Officer, Karimnagar (West), Karimnagar, Karimnagar District. 3 Forest Range Officer, Karimnagar, Karimnagar District. .....RESPONDENT(S)
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 an appropriate writ, order or direction, preferably one in the nature of writ of mandamus, declaring the impugned order of the 2nd respondent vide proceedings No.1130/98/S6, dated 25-6-2004, as arbitrary, illegal and contrary to law and consequently direct the respondents herein to permit the petitioner to shift his Saw Mill Viz., Sri Venkateswara Saw Mill from Jangalapally Village in Gangadhar Mandal, Karimnagar District to Gangadhara X Roads, Gangadhara Mandal, Karimnagar District forthwith. Counsel for the Petitioner:MR.J.KANAKAIAH Counsel for the Respondents: GP FOR FORESTS The Court at the stage of admission made the following
ORDER:
Learned counsel for the petitioner seeks permission of this Court to withdraw the writ petition. Permission is accorded. The writ petition is accordingly dismissed as withdrawn. No costs. 25th AUGUST, 2004. To 1 The Principal Chief Conservator of Forests, Andhra Pradesh, Hyderabad. 2 The Divisional Forest Officer, Karimnagar (West), Karimnagar, Karimnagar District. 3 The Forest Range Officer, Karimnagar, Karimnagar District. 4 Two CCs to the Government Pleader for Forests, A.P.High Court Buildings, Hyderabad. (OUT). 5 Two CD copies.
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.