Dismissed

T.Krishna Rao v. The Greater Visakhapatnam Municipal Corporation Visakhapatna

Andhra Pradesh HC16 Jul 2021WP/13792/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court set aside the order of the learned single Judge dismissing the representation. The writ petition and appeal were dismissed as withdrawn with liberty to make a representation before the minority welfare department.

What did the court decide?

Order dated 27.09.2021 set aside; Writ Petition and Writ Appeal dismissed as withdrawn with liberty to make representation.

T.Krishna Rao Vs The Greater… — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Andhra Pradesh HC (2021)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH: AMARAVATI

¶2

HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE PRASHANT KUMAR MISHRA, CHIEF JUSTICE

¶3

¶4

HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE M. SATYANARAYANA MURTHY

¶5

W.A. No.637 of 2021 & W.P.No.20624 of 2021

¶6

(Through physical mode)

¶7

W.A.No.637 of 2021

¶8

Valluru Sreedhar Naidu, S/o late Venkaiah, Aged about 48 years, Occ: Business, R/o Kasumuru Village, Venkatachalam Mandal, SPSR Nellore District.

¶9

	..Appellant
Versus The State of Andhra Pradesh, Represented by its Principal Secretary, Minority Welfare Department, Secretariat, Velagapudi, Guntur District and others.	…Respondents
Counsel for the appellant :	Mr. K.V.R.L.N. Sarma
Counsel for respondent No.1 :	GP for Social Welfare
Counsel for respondent Nos.2 to 4 :	Mr. Shaik Karimullah
Counsel for respondent No.5 :	Mr. V. Satyanarayana Prasad

¶10

W.P.No.20624 of 2021

¶11

Valluru Sreedhar Naidu, S/o late Venkaiah, Aged about 48 years, Occ: Business, R/o Kasumuru Village, Venkatachalam Mandal, SPSR Nellore District.

¶12

	..Petitioner
	Versus
The State of Andhra Pradesh, Represented by its Principal Sec	retary,
Minority Welfare Department, Secretariat, Velagapudi,
Guntur District and others.	…Respondents
Counsel for the petitioner	: Mr. K.V.R.L.N. Sarma
Counsel for respondent No.1	: GP for Social Welfare

¶13

¶14

Counsel for respondent Nos.2 to 4 : Mr. Shaik Karimullah Counsel for respondent No.5 : Mr. V. Satyanarayana Prasad

¶15

COMMON JUDGMENT (ORAL)

¶16

Dt:25.11.2021

¶17

(per Prashant Kumar Mishra, CJ)

¶18

W.A.No.637 of 2021 is preferred by the appellant/writ petitioner against the order dated 27.09.2021 passed by the learned single Judge in W.P.No.20624 of 2021.

¶19

Learned counsel for the appellant/writ petitioner submits that the appellant/writ petitioner intends to make a representation before the 2^nd respondent for redressal of his grievance and therefore, permission may be granted to the appellant/writ petitioner to withdraw the writ petition as well as the writ appeal by setting aside the order of the learned single Judge and reserving liberty to the appellant/writ petitioner to make representation before the 2^nd respondent.

¶20

In view of the above submission, the order dated 27.09.2021 passed in W.P.No.20624 of 2021 is set aside and the Writ Petition and Writ Appeal are dismissed as withdrawn granting liberty to the appellant/writ petitioner as prayed for. No costs. All pending miscellaneous applications shall stand dismissed.

¶21

PRASHANT KUMAR MISHRA, CJ M. SATYANARAYANA MURTHY,J

¶22

T.Krishna Rao v. The Greater Visakhapatnam Municipal Corporation Visakhapatna

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

T.Krishna Rao v. The Greater Visakhapatnam Municipal Corporation Visakhapatna

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

K. Sandeep Vs The Greater Visakhapatnam Municipal Corporation

S. Hanuman Rao, Vs The State of Andhra Pradesh

Gandikota Edukondalu and Another Vs The District Collector

K.J.Indumathi, Vs State of Andhra Pradesh

Andhavarapu Appalanarasamma (Died) Vs Singuru Nageswara Rao

Pothrakunda Rajulu, Vs Bankipelli Satyam