The court dismissed the writ petition as withdrawn, applying a prior order passed in W.P.No. 16083 of 2003 where a similar petition filed by the Government was dismissed upon withdrawal. No other orders as to costs were passed.
None. Order reserved.
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 G. CHANDRAIAH
&
HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE U.DURGA PRASAD RAO
W.P.No. 8599 of 2005
DATE: 20.11.2015
Between:
The District Collector
and three others .. Petitioners
And
Samudrala Kumaraswamy and two others .. Respondents
O R D E R:- (per Hon’ble Sri Justice G. Chandraiah)
The learned Government Pleader for Services-I representing the learned Advocate General appearing for the petitioners, has submitted that this writ petition is squarely covered by the order dated 09.08.2005 passed by this Court in W.P.No. 16083 of 2003 which
was filed by the Government whereby the writ petition was dismissed as withdrawn.
Following the order in W.P.No. 16083 of 2003, the present writ petition is dismissed as withdrawn. No order as to costs.
As a sequel to the dismissal of the writ petition, Miscellaneous Petitions, if any pending, shall stand disposed of as infructuous.
G. CHANDRAIAH, J
20.11.2015
U.DURGA PRASAD RAO,J
bcj
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
order dated 09.08.2005Followed¶12
W.P.No. 16083 of 2003
District Collector and three others
Samudrala Kumaraswamy and two others
G. CHANDRAIAH
U.DURGA PRASAD RAO
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
