The petitioner's Writ Petition was dismissed as infructuous because counsel for the petitioner was absent and the Standing Counsel for the respondents submitted that the matter was no longer required to be heard.
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.
HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE A. RAMALINGESWARA RAO WRIT PETITION No.27723 of 2009
ORDER:
This Writ Petition was filed challenging the action of the respondents in not allotting shop No.11, situated at ‘E’ Block Commercial Complex, Kurnool Bus Stand, to the petitioner.
2. Learned counsel for the petitioner is absent. Learned Standing Counsel for the respondents submits that the Writ Petition has become infructuous and hence, no further orders are necessary in this Writ Petition.
3. Recording the said submission, the Writ Petition is dismissed as infructuous. No order as to costs. Miscellaneous Petitions, if any, pending in this Writ Petition shall stand closed.
_______________________________ A. RAMALINGESWARA RAO, J
Date: 02.09.2014 TJMR
PETITIONER
RESPONDENTS
A. RAMALINGESWARA RAO
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
