The Supreme Court dismissed two writ petitions (W.P. No.5926 of 2004 and W.P. No.1423 of 2005) for default due to the absence of representation by the petitioners on the date of hearing.
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.
THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE GODA RAGHURAM
AND
THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE NOUSHAD ALI
W.P.No.5926 of 2004 And
W.P.No.1423 of 2005
28-04-2010
BETWEEN;
P.Umakantha Rao
...Petitioner
vs.
The State of A.P. rep. by itsSecretary,MAD, Secretariat, Hyderabad and others
...Respondents
THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE GODA RAGHURAM
AND
THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE NOUSHAD ALI
W.P.No.5926 of 2004 AND
W.P.No.1423 of 2005
ORAL COMMON ORDER: (Per GR,J)
As there being no representation on behalf of the writ petitioners on 0709-2009, the matters were directed to be listed under the caption for “dismissal” and when called today again there is no representation.
Therefore, these writ petitions are dismissed for default. No order as to costs.
______________
GODA RAGHURAM,J
______________ NOUSHAD ALI,J
28th APRIL 2010. TSNR
P.Umakantha Rao
The State of A.P. rep. by its Secretary, MAD
Goda Raghuram
Noushad Ali
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
