Hyderabad & Anr. v. Hyderabad & Anr.
Case at a glance
Provisions considered
- Constitution of India arts. 14, 19, 19(1)(d), 19(1)(g), 21, 41, 226
- Jawaharlal Nehru Technological University Act, 1972
- Essential Commodities Act, 1955 s. 3
- Essential Commodities Act s. 3
- Hyderabad City Police Act s. 21(1)
- Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 s. 91(2)(i)
- University Grants Commission Act, 1956 s. 14
Judgment
*THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE V.V.S.RAO +WRIT PETITION Nos.8720 and 9071 of 2004 %30-11-2004 W.P.8720 of 2004 # Sri G.Dinesh Kumar and others Vs. ..PETITIONERS $ The Vice Chancellor, Jawaharlal Nehru Technological University, Kukatpally, Hyderabad and another. ..RESPONDENTS W.P.No.9071 of 2004 # A.Vinay Kumar Vs. …PETITIONER # The Vice Chancellor, Jawaharlal Nehru Technological University, Kukatpally, Hyderabad and another. …RESPONDENTS Counsel for both the writ petitions ! COUNSEL FOR PETITIONERS: Mr. M.Govind Reddy ^ COUNSEL FOR RESPONDENT No.1: M/s C.Kodanda Ram COUNSEL FOR RESPONDENT No.2: Mr. S.Niranjan Reddy <GIST >HEAD NOTE: ?CASES REFERRED:
AIR 1962 SC 316
AIR 1967 SC 1373
AIR 1978 SC 597
AIR 1981 SC 487
AIR 1964 SC 464
AIR 1984 SC 541
1977 Appeal Cases 1014
408 US 104 (1972)
AIR 1962 SC 110
AIR 1070 SC 1039
AIR 1989 Bombay 162
(2002) 9 SCC 720
2000 (4) ALD 630 (DB)
2002 (3) ALD 667 (DB)
2003 (4) ALD 553 (DB)
AIR 1971 SC 771 (para 5)
AIR 1985 SC 660
AIR 1988 SC 2027
AIR 1971 SC 2560
(1953) 98 L Ed.884
AIR 1993 SC 2178
Questions this judgment answers
Which statutory provisions did this judgment involve?
Constitution of India — arts. 14, 19, 19(1)(d), 19(1)(g), 21, 41, 226; Jawaharlal Nehru Technological University Act, 1972; Essential Commodities Act, 1955 — s. 3; Essential Commodities Act — s. 3; Hyderabad City Police Act — s. 21(1); Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 — s. 91(2)(i).
Which court decided this case, and when?
Andhra Pradesh High Court, on 30 Nov 2004. The bench was V V S RAO.
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.