Dismissed
Sri Nadipelli Muralidhar Rao, v. The Indian Oil Corporation Ltd.
Telangana HCWP/6767/2002
Case brief
from the order text
What is this about?
COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT…
What the court decided
AI extract
COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT…
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)
FRIDAY, THE TWELFTH DAY OF JUNE TWO THOUSAND AND NINE
PRESENT
THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE R.SUBHASH REDDY WRIT PETITION NO : 6767 of 2002
Between:
Sri Nadipelli Muralidhar Rao, S/o Nadipalli Srinivas Rao, Ramagundam Municipality, & Joint Secretary, T.R.S., Karimnagar District.
Committee, Karimnagar.
..... PETITIONER
AND
.....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 to issue a Writ, Order or Direction more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus Declaring the ction of the land 2nd Respondent in allowing Respondents 5 to 8 to draw H.S.D./Lube Oil, Petrol etc., as being violative of the Lr.No. P-21017/12/92- Dist. dt: 13-896 of the 1st Respondent, and bad in law and consequently direct the respondents 1,2,3,4, restrain themslves from sanctioning Consumer
Pumps to Respondent 5 to 8, or any other similar Company in Singareni Collieries Mining area of Karimnagar, Warangal, Khammam District, in the interest of Justice
Counsel for the Petitioner:MR.B.SUDHAKAR REDDY & NEERAJA REDDY
Counsel for the Respondent No.: MR.A.RAJASHEKAR REDDY (ASST SOLICITOR GEN)
The Court made the following : THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE R.SUBHASH REDDY
WRIT PETITION NO: 6767 of 2002
ORAL ORDER:
As there was no representation, when the writ petition was called for hearing, on 11.6.2009, the matter was directed to be listed under the caption ‘for dismissal’. Today though the writ petition is listed under the caption ‘for dismissal’, there is no representation on behalf of the petitioner.
Therefore, the writ petition is dismissed for non-prosecution. No order as to costs.
____________ 12-6-2009
asp
Nadipelli Muralidhar Rao
Indian Oil Corporation Ltd.
R. Subhash Reddy
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court