Kivnatpur Post, Ra.iendranagar v. Godavari Basin- Orianisation, Central Water Commission, Hyd
Case at a glance
Provisions considered
- Constitution of India art. 226
- Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 s. 151
Key paragraphs
- Para 22. In view of the submission made by the learned counsel for the petitioner, this Writ Petition is closed. However, liberty is granted to the petitioner to approach afresh, if the cause of action survives. There shall be no order as to costs. As a…
Judgment
Cause title
R. Rama Raj, S/o. A.Rama Krishna Reddiar, Working as Asst. Executive Engineer, R/ij. pbt No.77, Sri Venkateswara Qo^lgny, Bandlaguda jagir, Kivnatpur Post, Ra.iendranagar mandal, Hyderabad-30. ...PETITIONER
AND
6. The National Water Development Agency rep. by the Director General. 18- 20, New Delhi-17. th6 Goveming body of National Water Development, Agency, 1ep.- by .its Chairman -crim-Setretary, Ministry of Water Resources, Govt of lndia, Sharam Shakti bhavan, Rafi Marg New Delhi. The Deputy Director ( Admn), National Water Development Agency, Community Centre, Saket, New Delhi-17 The Chiei Engineer, ( sough), National Water Development Agency, Community Centre, Saket, New Delhi-17. Sri A. Rainanna, Central Water Commission, Asst. Director, Working at Nizamabad. SriA. tuonan Reddy, EAD/Asst. Engineer, o/o. Chief Engineer, Krishna and Godavari Basin- Orianisation, Central Water Commission, Hyd. ...RESPONDENTS
Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of lndia praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed thei'ewith, the High Court may be pleased to issue an appropriate writ, order or direction mostly one which is in the nature of writ of Mandamus declaring the action of the respondents 1 to 3 in the appointment of respondents 5 and 6 as Executive Engineers for the posts at Hyderabad and Chennai vide letter No.20t'l4lO4 Vig/8183-88 dt- 20.21-7-2005 ot the 3rd respondent is illegal, irregular, arbitrary, unjustified, discriminatory and unsustainable and set aside such appointments by directing the respondents 1 and 2 to consider the cases of Asst. Executive Engineers working in NWDA for promotion to the posts of Executive Engineers in the existing future vacancies by exercising the powers vested under By law No.31 for incr: rsing the quota for promotion l.A. NO: 2 OF 2005(WPMP. NO: 22353 OF 2005) Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the cirr rmstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court m:r' be pleased stay all further proceedings of the respondents in pursuance of letter No.20114104 Vig/8183-88 dL.20.21-7-2005 and letter 2011412004-vigl817z. )1 dt.20.21-7-2005 of the 3rd respondent for filling up the vacancies at Hyder,l rad and Chennai in N.W.D./A. Counsel for the Petitioner: SRl. KARRI MURALI KRISHNA Counsel for the Respondent Nos. 1to4: SRI N. BHUJANGA I AO, DY. SOLICITOR GENI RAL OF INDIA Counsel for the Respondent Nos.5&6:- The Court made the following: ORDER I I I i I I I I THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE NAMAVAR,APU RAIESHWAR RAO WRIT PETITION No.17560 OF 2005
ORDER:
Today, when the matter is taken up for hearing, learned counsel for the petitioner informed this Court that the petitioner is not in contact and is unable to proceed with the matter.
In view of the submission made by the learned counsel for the petitioner, this Writ Petition is closed. However, liberty is granted to the petitioner to approach afresh, if the cause of action survives. There shall be no order as to costs. As a sequel, miscellaneous applications pending, if any, in this Writ Petition, shall stand closed. 1 SD/- T.SRINIVASA REDDY ASSISTANT REGISTRAR //TRUE COPY// ECTION OFFICER To,
One CC to SRl. KARRI MURALI KRISHNA, Advocate [OPUC] 2. One CC to SRl. N. BHUJANGA RAO, ASSISTANT SOLICITOR GENERAL oF rNDrA IOPUC]
Two CD Copies BM PSK ?A4. HIGH COURT DATED:2711112025 i I I ORDER WP.No.17560 of 2005 'i t: SI { R \-J( E 2026 v fit ti '.: -'. A.., .---- ': - /-: ,),:.,' -ct ^:, '-2:r I i.) li r r i1 r r-'. ; r) \?+ '\*^ CLOSING THE WRIT PETITTON WITHOL TCOSTS :,-oV-\,L
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.