Dismissed

M/s. Siva Sankar Dal Mill, v. The Central Power Distribunal Company of A.P. Limited

Telangana HC21 Oct 2016WP/6091/2014

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Acting Chief Justice dismissed a writ petition for non-prosecution by the absent petitioner, and dismissed another petition seeking appointment as an Anganwadi worker as infructuous since the case was already considered and rejected as overaged.

What did the court decide?

dismissal of the writ petition for non-prosecution; dismissal of the petition as infructuous

M/s. Siva Sankar Dal Mill, Vs The Central Power… — Service and Employment | Telangana HC (2016)

¶1

THE HON’BLE THE ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE RAMESH RANGANATHAN

¶2

Writ Petition No.6091 of 2014

¶3

ORDER:

¶4

Since none appeared for the petitioner on 30.9.2016, the matter was directed to be listed under the caption for dismissal. Today, though the matter is listed under the caption of dismissal, neither is the learned counsel for the petitioner present nor is there any representation on his behalf.

¶5

The writ petition is dismissed for non-prosecution. The miscellaneous petitions, pending, if any, shall also stand dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs.

¶6

_________________________________ (RAMESH RANGANATHAN, ACJ) 21^st October, 2016 pnb

¶7

THE HON’BLE THE ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE RAMESH RANGANATHAN

¶8

Writ Petition No.6091 of 2014

¶9

Date: 21.10.2016

¶10

pnb

¶11

THE HON’BLE THE ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE RAMESH RANGANATHAN

¶12

Writ Petition No. 22338 of 2007

¶13

ORDER:

¶14

Neither Sri M.V.Narasimham, learned counsel for the petitioner, is present nor is there any representation on his behalf.

¶15

The relief sought for in the writ petition is to direct the respondents to consider the case of the petitioner for appointment to the post of Anganwadi worker at Anganwadi Centre of Katepalli B.C. Colony, Vinjamur Mandal, Nellore District.

¶16

Learned Government Pleader for Women Development and Child Welfare, would submit that in terms of the interim order passed by this Court on 22.10.2007, the petitioner’s case was considered along with other eligible candidates and her candidature was rejected as she was over aged.

¶17

As the relief sought for by the petitioner is to consider her case and her case has been considered albeit pursuant to the interim order passed by this Court, the cause in the writ petition does not survive, and that the writ petition has become infructuous.

¶18

The writ petition is, accordingly, dismissed. The miscellaneous

¶19

petitions, pending, if any, shall also stand dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs.

¶20

_________________________________ (RAMESH RANGANATHAN, ACJ)

¶21

30^th September, 2016

¶22

pnb

¶23

THE HON’BLE THE ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE RAMESH RANGANATHAN

¶24

Writ Petition No. 22338 of 2007

¶25

Date: 30.09.2016

¶26

pnb

M/s. Siva Sankar Dal Mill, v. The Central Power Distribunal Company of A.P. Limited

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

M/s. Siva Sankar Dal Mill, v. The Central Power Distribunal Company of A.P. Limited

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

The Depot Manager, Apsrtc, Cantonment Bus Depot, Vs V.R. Indira Rama Devi W/o.Chennakesavulu

D. Srinivasulu, Vs Government of Andhra Pradesh

Nazma Begum Vs The State of Andhra Pradesh

Jamlapurapu Viswanadha Rao, Vs The Government of India

Y. Thiruapthi S/o Shekaraiah, Vs The Regional Manager, Apsrtc.

Raman Sarvan, Vs A.P.S.R.T.C