District v. Department, Secretariat Buildings, Hyderabad
Case at a glance
- Bench
- G ROHINI
Outcome
Disposed of
works in question, the writ petition is disposed of with a direction to
Provisions considered
- Constitution of India art. 226
Judgment
Cause title
Counsel for the Petitioner: MR.J.SREENIVASA RAO Counsel for the Respondent No.: GP FOR MUNCIPAL ADMN. & URBAN DEV. The Court made the following : THE HON'BLE MS JUSTICE G.ROHINI WRIT PETITION No : 13043 of 2009
O R D E R :
Operative part
This writ petition is filed seeking a declaration that the alleged action of the respondents in not allotting and sanctioning the development works in respect of ward Nos.14 and 20 of Pedana Municipality, Pedana, Krishna District is arbitrary and illegal. The petitioners herein are the councilors of ward Nos.14 and 20 of the said Municipality. Heard the learned standing counsel for the 4th respondent- Municipality. The material on record shows that the petitioners made representation on 24.04.2009 by register post and the same was received in the office of the respondents. In the circumstances, the respondents are expected to consider the request of the petitioners and pass appropriate orders in accordance with law. Accordingly, without expressing any opinion as to the entitlement of the petitioners for the allotment of the development works in question, the writ petition is disposed of with a direction to the respondents to consider the representation of the petitioners dated 24.04.2009 and pass appropriate orders in accordance with law as expeditiously as possible, preferably within a period of eight weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. No costs. ______________ G. ROHINI, J Dated: 17-07-2009 KLP
Questions this judgment answers
What did the Court decide in this case?
The Court recorded the following disposition: works in question, the writ petition is disposed of with a direction to
Which statutory provisions did this judgment involve?
Constitution of India — art. 226.
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.