Smt.Sujatha Vs Thirupathi Urban Development Authority

Counsel for the Petitioner: Sri Ch.Janardhan Reddy Counsel for Respondent No.1: Sri G.Ramachandra Reddy Counsel for respondent No.2: Smt.Ch.Vedavani

¶10

The Court made the following:

¶11

ORDER:

¶12

This writ petition is filed for the following substantive relief:

¶13

“…to issue any order or direction, writ or writs, more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus declaring the action of the 2^nd respondent issued impugned notice No.41/2010 dated 26.09.2010 issued on 26.09.2010 are illegal, arbitrary, malafide and violation of principles of natural justice and set aside the same; consequently direct the respondents to dispose of the representations dated 12.07.2010 and 25.08.2010.”

¶14

At the hearing, Sri Ch.Janardhan Reddy, learned counsel for the petitioner, having regard to the stand taken by respondent Nos.1 and 2 in their counter affidavits that the petitioner’s applications for regularisation in terms of G.O.Ms.No.901, dated 31.12.2007, have not been received, sought for permission of the Court to withdraw the writ petition with liberty to his client to make fresh applications.

¶15

Accordingly, the writ petition is dismissed as withdrawn with liberty in terms of the prayer made. This order, however, shall not be understood as this Court recognising the right of the petitioner to make applications by extending the time, if any, stipulated in the G.Os., in

¶16

force.

¶17

As a sequel to dismissal of the writ petition, W.P.M.P.No.31980 of 2010 filed by the petitioner for interim relief is disposed of as infructuous.

¶18

C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY, J 17^th March, 2011 Note: Issue CC in five days. (b/o) VGB

Smt.Sujatha v. Thirupathi Urban Development Authority

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Smt.Sujatha v. Thirupathi Urban Development Authority

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

B.Vijaya Lakshmi Vs State of a.P., represented by its Secretary

Bharat Food Products, a Partnership Firm, Siricilla Road, Vs District Collector

M/s.Devatha Samkshema Sangham Vs TheSuperintending Engineer

K.Balaswamy, Vs The District Collector

G. Malikarjuna Reddy Vs The Joint Collector, (Civil Supplies), Krishna District

Grampanchayath, P. Siddarampuram, Rep. by its Vs The Tahsildar, Atmakur