Paladugu Bal Reddy, S o late P. Ramaswamy Reddy v. The State of Telangana
Case at a glance
Outcome
Dismissed
petition is dismissed as infructuous
Provisions considered
- Constitution of India art. 226
- Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 s. 151
Judgment
Cause title
No.204, Om Sri Sai Homes, [Vedipally, Malkajgiri, Hyderabad. ...RESPONDENTS
Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of lndia praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed therewith, the High Court may be pleased to issue a writ, order or direction one in the nature of Mandamus declaring the action of the second respondent in interfering with the civil disputes pending between the petitioner and 3rd and 4th respondent is illegal arbitrary and unconstitutional and consequently direct the 2nd respondent not to pressurize the petitioner to settle the dispute, with the 3rd and 4th respondent 7 petition under section 151 Cpc praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High court may be pleased to issue interirn directions to the second respondent not to interfere with the personallifelandlibertyofthepetitionersandalsoincivildisputespending b"t*..n the petitioner and 3rd and 4th respondents pending disposar of the writ , petition Counsel for the Petitioners: SRI' RAJAGOPALLAVAN TAYI CounselfortheRespondentNos.l&2:SRIM.SRINIVAS,AGPFoRHoME Counsel for the Respondent Nos' 3&4:- The Court made the following: ORDER i Iit Y
ORDER:
THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE N.TUKARAMJI WRIT PETITION 33778 0F 2017 This Writ Petition is filed under Article 226 of Constitution of lndia seeking the following relief: "...fo r'ssue an order, direction or a writ particularly one in the nature Writ of Mandamus, declaring the action of the second respondent in interfering with the civil disputes pending between the petitioner and td and 4th respondent is iltegal arbitrary and unconstitutional and consequentty direct the Z'o respondent not ^,to pressurize the petitioner to settte the dispute, with the td and 4th respondent....."
2. Heard Mr.Rajagopallavan Tayi, learned counsel for the petitioners and Mr.M.Srinivas, learned Assistant Government Pleader for Home appearing for respondents No.1 and 2.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the cause of action in the present writ petition no longer survives for adjudication and, therefore, seeks dismissal of the writ petition as infructuous.
4. Learned Assistant Government Pleader raises no objection to the said submission.
Operative part
5. Recording the submissions of both learned counsel, the writ petition is dismissed as infructuous. There shall be no order as to costs. Miscellaneous petitions, pending if any, shalt stand closed sD/- AS K.BHAVANI SWAMY ISTANT REGISTRAR //TRUE COPY/ To
One CC to S RI. RAJAG OPALLAVAN TAYI, Ad 2. Two CCs to GP FOR HOTUE ,High Court for vocate the State of
Hyderabad tourl Two CD Co BM nJT TKS N OFFICER PUCI Telangana at _,_ffi F f HIGH COURT DATED t1311U2A25 .tHES Irl I 3 ?gJANZozE 7 ORDER WP.No .33778 of 2017 * t; DISMISSINGTHEWRITPETITIoNASINFRUGToUS WITHOUT COSTS @ p{ ,o\'\'s ! I
Questions this judgment answers
What did the Court decide in this case?
The Court recorded the following disposition: petition is dismissed as infructuous
Which statutory provisions did this judgment involve?
Constitution of India — art. 226; Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 — s. 151.
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.