Petitioner sought writ for extension/reappointment. Court disposed of writ as infructuous due to a subsequent order by Respondent No.1 rendering the cause moot.
Affirmed dismissal of the petition as infructuous; vacated interim order; disposed of connected remedies.
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 C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY
WRIT PETITION No.29191 of 2011
Dated: 08.02.2013
Between:
D.M.Abu Mohammed .. Petitioner. and Government of India, Rep. by its Secretary, Ministry of Commerce and Industry, Department of Commerce, Udyog Bhavan, New Delhi, and another. .. Respondents.
Counsel for the Petitioner: Mr.T. Ramesh Babu for Mr. B.Adinarayana Rao
Counsel for Respondent No.1: None appeared
Counsel for Respondent No.2: Mr. J.V.Prasad.
The Court made the following:
ORDER:
This Writ Petition is filed for the following substantive relief:
“..Hon’ble Court may be pleased to issue a appropriate writ, order or direction more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus declaring the inaction of the 1st respondent in not disposing of the representation dated 30.08.2011 seeking extension of tenure/reappointment of the petitioner as Member of the 2nd Respondent-Board during the period of operation of stay from 17.03.2009 to 25.04.2011 pursuant to orders in W.P.No.2163 of 2009 as being illegal, arbitrary and consequently to direct the 1st respondent to consider the case of the petitioner either for extension of tenure or for re-appointment and pass such other appropriate orders in the interest of justice.”
At the hearing, Mr. T.Ramesh Babu, learned counsel representing Mr.B.Adinarayana Rao, learned counsel for the petitioner, submitted that pending the writ petition, respondent No.1 has passed an order, as a result of which the cause in this writ petition does not survive for adjudication and, he has therefore, requested that the Writ Petition may be disposed of as infructuous.
The Writ Petition is accordingly disposed of as infructuous. As a sequel, interim order dated 12.12.2011 is vacated and WPMP.No.36139 of 2011 and WVMP.No.2695 of 2012 are disposed of.
C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY,J
08.02.2013 v v
D.M.Abu Mohammed
Government of India
C.V.Nagarjuna Reddy
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
