R. Sujith Kumar v. Municipal Administration And Urban Development Department, Secretariat Buildings, Saifabad, Hyderabad
Case at a glance
- Decided
- 16 Jul 2004
- Bench
- D S R VARMA
Outcome
Dismissed
The writ petition is dismissed as ‘no instructions’ and for non-appearance of the
Provisions considered
Judgment
Cause title
R. Sujith Kumar, S/o Sri Moti Lal, R/o Safaibasthi, Near Ganesh Temple, Kothagudem, Khammam Dist. AND ..... PETITIONER
1 The State of A.P., Rep by Principal Secretary to Government Municipal Administration And Urban Development Department, Secretariat Buildings, Saifabad, Hyderabad. 2 The Commissioner & Director of Municipalities, Govt., of A.P., M.J. Road, Nampally, Hyderabad. 3 The Kothagudem Notified Area Committee, Rep by Chairman, Kothagudem. .....RESPONDENTS
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 or order or a direction, more particularly one in the nature of a writ of Mandamus, compelling the first respondent herein, Viz., the State Government to constitute the Municipality for the local area of Kothagudem and Ramavaram under section 3 of the Andhra Pradesh Municipalities Act, 1965, duly replacing the existing "Kothagudem Notified Area Committee", within a period of 3 months and there afterwards hold the elections in accordance with the provisions contained in the Andhra Pradesh Municipalities Act, 1965 and to pass such other further order or orders as this Hon, ble Court may deem fit and proper in the circumstances of the case. Counsel for the Petitioner: MR. NOOTY RAMA MOHAN RAO Counsel for the Respondent No.1 & 2: The G.P. for Housing and Municipal Administration. Counsel for the Respondent No.3: Mr. R. Thimma Reddy (S.C. for Telengana Municipalities) The Court made the following:
ORAL ORDER:
Operative part
The learned Counsel representing Mr. Nooty Ram Mohana Rao appearing for the writ petitioner reported ‘no instructions’ since records were taken away by the petitioner. The writ petition is dismissed as ‘no instructions’ and for non-appearance of the petitioner. es/dr __________ 16-07-2004 To 1 The Principal Secretary, State of A.P., Municipal Administration and Urban Development Department, Secretariat Buildings, Saifabad, Hyderabad. 2 The Commissioner & Director of Municipalities, Govt., of A.P., M.J. Road, Nampally, Hyderabad. 3 The Chairma, Kothagudem Notified Area Committee, Kothagudem, Khammam District.
Two CCs to the G.P. for Housing & Municipal Administration, High Court of A.P., Hyderabad (OUT)
Two C.D copies.
Questions this judgment answers
What did the Court decide in this case?
The Court recorded the following disposition: The writ petition is dismissed as ‘no instructions’ and for non-appearance of the
Which statutory provisions did this judgment involve?
Constitution of India — art. 226; Andhra Pradesh Municipalities Act, 1965 — s. 3.
Which court decided this case, and when?
Andhra Pradesh High Court, on 16 Jul 2004. The bench was D S R VARMA.
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.