Common order allowing numerous writ petitions on the grounds that the matters were previously covered by a Division Bench judgment dismissing appeals filed by the State.
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. 1047, 1487, 1662, 1771,1980, 2008, 2116, 2272, 2435, 2611, 2806, 2838, 2976, 3058, 3145, 3168, 3245,3309, 3367, 3383, 3600, 3631, 3655, 3716, 3775, 3933, 3937, 4075, 5807, 12133, 12134, 12138, 12985 and 13412 of 2010 505, 511, 548, 562, 5000, 5335, 8280, 13839, 15277, 16913, 18253 and 18529 of 2011
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)
22nd July 2011
ksld
1 issue framed by the court
Whether these writ petitions being sub judice under prior Division Bench judgment, should be allowed by relying on the preceding order,
Writ Petitioners
State
Noothy Ramamohana Rao
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
