Dalit Liberation Front v. State of Andhra Pradesh
Case at a glance
Provisions considered
- Andhra Pradesh Cooperative Societies Act, 1964 s. 31(1)(b)
Judgment
Counsel for the appellant : Shri K. Ashok Reddy Dated: 31.01.2007 Per G.S.SINGHVI, CJ This appeal is directed against order dated
27.12.2006 passed by the learned Single Judge, whereby he dismissed the writ petition filed by the appellant for grant of a declaration that the action of the respondents in not following the rule of reservation contained in Section 31(1)(b) of the Andhra Pradesh Cooperative Societies Act, 1964 (for short ‘the Act’), as amended from time to time, and bye-law 9(3) of the bye- laws of Co-operative Electric Supply Society Limited, Sircilla is illegal. At the hearing, Shri K. Ashok Reddy, learned counsel for the appellant submitted that in view of the developments which have taken place after filing of the writ petition and the appeal, his client may be permitted to withdraw the writ appeal as well as the writ petition with liberty to file fresh petition for issue of a direction to the State Government to take action in terms of Section 31(1)(b) of the Act. In our opinion, the request made by the learned counsel is reasonable and merits acceptance. Hence, this appeal and Writ Petition No. 22387 of 2006 are dismissed as withdrawn with liberty to the appellant to file fresh petition in terms of the prayer made. As a sequel to dismissal of the appeal, W.A.M.P.No. 96 of 2007 filed by the appellant for interim relief is also dismissed. G.S.SINGHVI, CJ C.V. NAGARJUNA REDDY, J
31.01.2007 - -
Questions this judgment answers
Which statutory provisions did this judgment involve?
Andhra Pradesh Cooperative Societies Act, 1964 — s. 31(1)(b).
Which court decided this case, and when?
Andhra Pradesh High Court, on 31 Jan 2007. The bench was C V NAGARJUNA 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.