This common order allowed numerous writ petitions based on a Division Bench judgment in Writ Appeals No. 2117 of 2005. Some batches of these petitions are already covered by earlier orders.
The writ petitions are allowed in terms of the judgment in Writ Appeals No. 2117 of 2005.
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. 1751, 1764, 2704, 3110, 3286, 3386, 3990, 4002, 4238, 4692, 4730, 4761, 4861, 4974, 5120, 5130, 5251, 5262, 5277, 5290, 5302, 5329, 5332, 5342, 5346, 5352, 5407, 5412, 7093, 7960, 19242, 26197, 26903, 28223, 30158 and 31210 of 2010
COMMON ORDER:
Heard 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)
27th July 2011
ksld
Nooty Ramamohana Rao
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
