The writ petition was disposed of as infructuous because the petitioner received no instructions from his client. The intervening concern of respondent No.12 (M/s. G.S. Oil Limited) was closed long back, which was the reason for the lack of instructions.
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.
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT HYDERABAD FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AND THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH
HON’BLE THE ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE DILIP B. BHOSALE AND HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE P. NAVEEN RAO
WRIT PETITION No. 26638 of 2008
Date: 11.04.2016
Between:
Munigela Narsingh
… Petitioner
And The Govt., of A.P., rep., by its Principal Secretary, Department of Industries, Hyderabad & others.
… Respondents
This Court made the following:
HON’BLE THE ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE DILIP B. BHOSALE AND HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE P. NAVEEN RAO
WRIT PETITION No. 26638 of 2008
PC: (per the Hon’ble The Acting Chief Justice Dilip B. Bhosale)
Sri Lakkadi Dayakar Reddy, learned counsel for the petitioner, submits that he is not getting any instructions from his client.
Sri P. Shiva Kumar, learned counsel for respondent No.3, on instructions, submits that the industry of respondent No.12 – M/s. G.S. Oil Limited came to be closed long back. That seems to be the reason why nobody is coming forward to give instructions to learned counsel for the petitioner.
Hence, the writ petition is disposed of as infructuous. Miscellaneous petitions, if any, shall also stand disposed of.
________________________ DILIP. B. BHOSALE, ACJ
________________________ P. NAVEEN RAO, J
Date: 11.04.2016 ES
Munigela Narsingh
The Govt., of A.P.
DILIP B. BHOSALE
P. NAVEEN RAO
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
