I.V. Narasimharao v. Government of A.P., Hyderabad
Case at a glance
- Decided
- 06 Dec 2004
- Bench
- M NARAYANA REDDY
Provisions considered
- Constitution of India art. 226
Judgment
THE HON'BLE SRI DEVINDER GUPTA,THE CHIEF JUSTICE THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE M.NARAYANA REDDY WRIT PETITION NO : 3777 of 2002 Between: I.V. Narasimharao s/o Singanna, Upa Sarpanch R/o Ajjamuru, Akiveedu Mandal West Guntur Dist AND ..... PETITIONER 1 Officer on Special Duty, Government of A.P., Revenue (Excise) Department, Secretariat, Hyderabad 2 The Commissioner of Prohibition & Excise Government of A.P., Hyderabad. 3 The Prohibition & Excise Superintendent , Eluru 4 M.Venkata Sreeram Murthy, Licencee of M/S. Sai krishan Wines, Ajjmur, Akividu Mandal, West Godavari District. .....RESPONDENT(S) 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 a Writ of Mandamus or any other appropriate Writ or direction declaring the order of the 1st respondent passed in G.O. Rt. No. 1512 Revenue (Excise-III) Dept. dated 27/07/01 and the consequential order of the 3rd respondent passed in Proc. No.2673/98/A2 dated 14/08/2001 granting licence in favour of the 4th respondent as illegal, arbitrary and without jurisdiction and pass such or further orders as deem fit. Counsel for the Petitioner: MR.K.S.MURTHY Counsel for the Respondent Nos. 1 to 3: G.P. for Prohibition& Excise Counsel for the Respondent No.4: MR.S.NIRANJAN REDDY The Court made the following Oral Order: (per Sri Devinder Gupta, CJ) Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that by passage of time, the writ petition has been rendered infructuous. The writ petition is accordingly disposed of as such. No costs. ____________________ DEVINDER GUPTA, CJ Date: 6th December, 2004 Pnb ________________________ M. NARAYANA REDDY, J To 1 The Officer on Special Duty, Government of A.P., Revenue (Excise) Department, Secretariat, Hyderabad. 2 The Commissioner of Prohibition & Excise Government of A.P., Hyderabad. 3 The Prohibition & Excise Superintendent , Eluru. 4 Two Ccs. to G.P. for Prohibition & Excise, High Court buildings, Hyderabad (OUT). 5 Two C.D. copies
Questions this judgment answers
Which statutory provisions did this judgment involve?
Constitution of India — art. 226.
Which court decided this case, and when?
Andhra Pradesh High Court, on 06 Dec 2004. The bench was M NARAYANA REDDY.
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.