T. Krishna Murthy v. Administration, Secretariat, Hyderabad
Case at a glance
- Decided
- 31 Aug 2004
- Bench
- BILAL NAZKI, S ANANDA REDDY
Provisions considered
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 writ, order or direction more especially one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus declaring that the Provision to Section 91 of the A.P. Municipalities Act, 1965 as introduced by Act. No.20/89 is void and unenforceable and also restraining the 2nd respondent herein for not collecting the penalty towards the house tax of the petitioner bearing H.No.12-2-2 situated in Nidadavolu, Nidadavolu Municipality, West Godavari Dist. through his demand notice dt: 5-5-1994 bearing Assesssement No.7213. Counsel for the Petitioner:MR.B.TARAKAM Counsel for the Respondent No.1: GP FOR MUNCIPAL ADMN. & URBAN DEV. Counsel for Respondent No.2: Standing Counsel for MCH The Court made the following
O R D E R (Per the Hon’ble Sri Justice Bilal Nazki):
The writ petitioner challenged the amendment to Section 91 of the Andhra Pradesh Municipalities Act, 1965, as introduced by Act 20 of 1989. Government of Andhra Pradesh and the Commissioner of Nidadavolu Municipality were made as respondents. As against Government of Andhra Pradesh, writ petition has been dismissed in default by order of this Court dated 20th June, 2001. No steps have been taken to restore the petition as against the State of Andhra Pradesh. In these circumstances, the writ petition cannot be decided on merits. Hence, the same is dismissed. No order as to costs. _____________________ (BILAL NAZKI, J) 31st August, 2004. _____________________ (S.ANANDA REDDY, J) To 1 The Commissioner, Nidadavolu Municipality, Nidadavolu, West Godavari Dist. 2 Two C.Cs to the Government Pleader for Municipal Administration and Urban Development, High Court Buildings, A.P., Hyderabad (OUT) 3 Two C.D copies
Questions this judgment answers
Which statutory provisions did this judgment involve?
Constitution of India — art. 226; A.P. Municipalities Act, 1965 — s. 91; Andhra Pradesh Municipalities Act, 1965 — s. 91.
Which court decided this case, and when?
Andhra Pradesh High Court, on 31 Aug 2004. The bench was BILAL NAZKI, S ANANDA REDDY.
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.