Petitioner withdrew the writ petition challenging non-consideration of a representation. The High Court accepted the withdrawal and dismissed the petition along with an infructuous WPMP.
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.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction)
PRESENT:
THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY
FRIDAY, THE TWENTY FIRST DAY OF JANUARY, TWO THOUSAND ELEVEN
WRIT PETITION No.695 of 2011
Between: Sri Khaja Fiazuddin. … Petitioner
And
The Government of A.P., reptd., by the Secretary, Department of Consumer Affairs, Food & Civil Supplies, CS Department, Hyderabad and others.
… Respondents
Counsel for the petitioner: Sri Immaneni Rama Rao. Counsel for the respondents: AGP for Civil Supplies.
This Court made the following:
ORDER:-
This Writ Petition is filed for the following substantive relief:
“…to issue a Writ, order or direction more particularly in the nature of Writ of Mandamus declaring the action of respondent No.1 in not considering the representation dated 23-92006 as illegal, arbitrary, unconstitutional, against the letter and spirit of Articles 19 and 21 of the Constitution of India and consequently direct the respondent to forthwith dispose of the representation dated 23-9-06 and report compliance thereof”.
At the hearing, Sri Immaneni Rama Rao, learned counsel for the petitioner, seeks permission of the Court to withdraw the Writ Petition.
The request of the learned counsel is accepted and the Writ Petition is dismissed as withdrawn.
As a sequel to dismissal of the Writ Petition, WPMP No.852 of 2011 is dismissed as infructuous.
C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY,J Date:21-1-2011 MNR
Sri Khaja Fiazuddin
The Government of A.P.
C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
