Yakoob Hussain Khaiser v. Complex, Opp: Public Gardens, Nampally, Hyderabad
Case at a glance
- Decided
- 10 Sep 2004
- Bench
- B PRAKASH RAO
Outcome
Dismissed
Accordingly, this Writ Petition is dismissed as infructuous
Provisions considered
- Constitution of India art. 226
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 an appropriate writ, order or direction more particularly one in the nature of Mandamus, declaring the action of the respondents 2 to 4 granting licence for toddy shop having received a letter from the Wakf Board for removal of Toddy shop/Guddamba Khana in Survey No.422 of Malkajgiri Village, Ranga Reddy District as being illegal, arbitrary, Capricious and malafide. Counsel for the Petitioner: MRSYED SHAREEF AHMED Counsel for the Respondent No.2 to 4 : GP FOR PROHIBITION & EXCISE Counsel for Respondents 1, 5,6 and 7: None appeared. The Court made the following :
O R D E R :
Operative part
It is represented by the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondents that having regard to the fact that the premises have been subsequently shifted to other place as evident from the licence No.277, dated 17.11.2003, the cause in this Writ Petition does not survive. Accordingly, this Writ Petition is dismissed as infructuous. No costs. ---------------------
10.09.2004 DRK Copy to: 1 A.P. State Wakf Board, rep., by its Chief Executive Officer, Haj House Complex, Opp: Public Gardens, Nampally, Hyderabad. 2 The Commissioner of Prohibition and Excise, Government of Andhra Pradesh, Opp: Gandhi Bhavan, Nampally, Hyderabad. 3 The Assistant Commissioner of Prohibition and Excise, State Task Force, Narayanaguda, Hyderabad. 4 The Registrar-cum-Excise Superintendent, Prohibition and Excise [ Ranga Reddy], Narayanaguda, Hyderabad. 5 Two CCs to the G.P. for Prohibition and Excise, High Court buildings, High Court of A.P., Hyderabad (o.u.t.) 6 Two CD copies.
Questions this judgment answers
What did the Court decide in this case?
The Court recorded the following disposition: Accordingly, this Writ Petition is dismissed as infructuous
Which statutory provisions did this judgment involve?
Constitution of India — art. 226.
Which court decided this case, and when?
Andhra Pradesh High Court, on 10 Sep 2004. The bench was B PRAKASH 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.