The single judge allowed multiple writ petitions by relying on a subsequent Division Bench order in Writ Appeals No. 2117 of 2005 that confirmed the Single Judge's earlier view and dismissed the appeals. No costs were awarded.
Writ petitions allowed in terms of the Division Bench judgment; no costs awarded.
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 HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE NOOTY RAMAMOHANA RAO
WRIT PETITIONS No. 1640, 1643, 1788, 1840, 2074, 2120, 2214, 2240, 2251, 2268, 2427, 2502, 2579, 2593, 2748 and 2791 of 2010, 20239 and 20441 OF 2011
COMMON ORDER:
Heard Sri P. Venkata Rao, learned counsel for the writ petitioners and the learned Government Pleader for Finance and Planning.
It is stated at the Bar by the learned counsel on either side that the cause in these Writ Petition has already been covered by an order passed by this Court in Writ Petition No. 23750 of 2000, dated 19.07.2005. Further, the State has carried the matter by way of appeal in a batch of Writ Appeals bearing No. 2117 of 2005 and batch. A Division Bench of this Court, by its judgment, dated 21.07.2010, considered the matter in extenso, and confirmed the view taken by the learned Single Judge and dismissed the appeals.
In view of this statement, these Writ Petitions are allowed in terms of the judgment rendered by the Division Bench in Writ Appeals referred to supra. No costs.
---------------------------------(NOOTY RAMAMOHANA RAO, J)
20th July 2011 ksld
1 issue framed by the court
Whether the current writ petitions should be disposed of by relying on the earlier Division Bench judgment in Writ Appeals No. 2117 of 2005.
Nooty Ramamohana Rao
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
