The petitioner challenged an order accepting her resignation. The petition was dismissed as infructuous because its pending nature was not indicated in the text, implying it became academic before the order was passed, as argued by the petitioner's counsel.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD
(Special Original Jurisdiction)
MONDAY, THE THIRTEENTH DAY OF JUNE TWO THOUSAND AND FIVE
PRESENT
THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE V.V.S.RAO
WRIT PETITION NO.12932 of 2004
Between:
Moola Venkata Lakshmi W/o Subbareddy, 30 years, Fair Price Shop Dealer, R/o.Madhavaram [V], Tallur (M),
Prakasam District.
..... PETITIONER
AND
Prakasam 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 a writ, order or direction more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus declaring the order of the1st respondent in D.Dis.No.F/1639/2004, dt.17/07/2004 thereby accepting the resignation allegedly tendered by the petitioner for Fair Price shop dealership for Madhavaram Village and appointing the 3rd respondent as fair price shop dealer temporarily though she has not submitted resignation is illegal, irregular, violative of principles of nature justice and Art. 14,16,19,and 21 of the Constitution of India and also the provisions of AP State Public Distribution System Control Order 2001 quash the same and consequently direct the respondent 1 and 2 continue the petitioner as fair price shop dealer in the interest of Justice.
Counsel for the Petitioner: MR.A. RAMA KRISHNA, REPRESENTING
MR.SATYANARAYANA NIMMAGADDA
Counsel for the Respondent Nos.1 AND 2: GP for Civil Supplies
Counsel for the Respondent No.3: None appeared.
The Court made the following:
ORDER:
Though the interlocutory matters are listed before this Court, learned Advocate Sri A. Rama Krishna, representing Sri Nimmagadda Satyanarayana, learned Counsel for the petitioner submits that the writ petition has become infructuous.
The writ petition is, therefore, dismissed as infructuous.
June 13, 2005. (V.V.S.RAO,J)
YS
To
High Court Buildings, Hyderabad.(OUT)
Moola Venkata Lakshmi
The Revenue Divisional Officer, Kandukur
The Mandal Revenue Officer, Tallur (M)
Palipogu Pethuru
V.V.S. Rao
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
