This court dismissed a writ petition challenging the cancellation of a sanitation work contract as infructuous because the impugned order was suspended and the contract was subsequently worked out, leaving no cause for adjudication.
Petition dismissed as infructuous; miscellaneous petitions to be closed; no order as to costs.
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 A.RAMALINGESWARA RAO
WRIT PETITION No.1515 of 2010
ORDER:
This Writ Petition was filed challenging the action of the respondent in canceling the petitioner’s contract of sanitation work by proceedings dated 20.01.2010.
The petitioner was given an order on 06.11.2009 to carry out sanitation work on monthly contract basis for a period of one year from 08.11.2009 to 07.11.2010. The order of cancellation dated 20.01.2010 was suspended by this Court on 29.01.2010. In view of the same, the contract itself was worked out, and nothing survives for adjudication in this Writ Petition.
The Writ Petition is accordingly dismissed as infructuous. The miscellaneous petitions pending, if any, shall stand closed. There shall be no order as to costs.
________________________________ (A.RAMALINGESWARA RAO, J) 24.09.2014 vs
1 issue framed by the court
Whether the writ petition is maintainable after suspension of the impugned order and consequent pendency of the contract.
Petitioner
Respondent
A.RAMALINGESWARA RAO
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
