S. Lakshmi Reddy v. Thimmapur Village, Penukonda
Case at a glance
Provisions considered
- Constitution of India art. 226
Judgment
Cause title
PRESENT THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE C.V.RAMULU WRIT PETITION No.1377 of 2009 Between: S. Lakshmi Reddy S/o. S. Venkat Reddy Venkata Reddy Palli Village, Penukonda Mandal, Nellore District. ..... PETITIONER
AND 1 The Tahsildar, Penukonda Mandal, Penukonda, Nellore District. 2 The Revenue Divisional Officer, Penukonda, Nellore District. 3 G. Krishna Veni D/o. G. Kistappa Thimmapur Village, Penukonda Mandal, Nellore District. .....RESPONDENTS
Petition under Article 226 of the constitution of India praying that in the circumstances stated in the Affidavit filed herein the High Court may be pleased to issue an appropriate writ, order or direction preferably one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus declaring the action of the respondents 1 and 2 in not supplying the essential commodities to the petitioner in respect of 200 cards of Thimmapur Harijanawada which were allotted to the Petitioner's Fair Price Shop of Venkat Reddy Palli Village, as usual, without there being any proceedings, as arbitrary, illegal and contrary to law and consequently direct the respondents 1 and 2 to continue to supply essential commodities as usual to the petitioner and pass such other or further orders as are necessary in the interest of justice. Counsel for the Petitioner: MR.J.KANAKAIAH Counsel for the Respondents: GP FOR CIVIL SUPPLIES The Court made the following: THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE C.V. RAMULU WRIT PETITION No.1377 OF 2009
ORDER:
Learned counsel for the petitioner seeks permission to withdraw the writ petition with a liberty to the petitioner to file a fresh writ petition. Permission is accorded. The writ petition is accordingly dismissed as withdrawn with the liberty as sought for. No order as to costs. 11th February, 2009 IBL _________________ JUSTICE C.V. RAMULU
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.