This writ appeal against proceedings in another writ petition seeking early hearing was dismissed. The court held that ordering notice and deferring hearing does not constitute a judgment under Clause 15 of the Letters Patent.
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 Mr. JUSTICE M. GANGA RAO
THE HON’BLE THE ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE RAMESH RANGANATHAN AND
Writ Appeal No.1474 of 2017
Judgment: (Per the Hon’ble The Acting Chief Justice Ramesh Ranganathan)
This appeal, under Clause 15 of the Letters Patent, is preferred against the proceedings in W.P. No. 33152 of 2017 dated 4.10.2017 ordering notice before admission and posting the matter after three weeks.
As held by a Division Bench of this Court in Kunala Subbarao vs. P.Nagaratnayamma1 , ordering of notice and deferring hearing of the Writ Petition, would not constitute a “judgment”, within the meaning of Clause 15 of the Letters Patent and, consequently, no appeal would lie.
Sri A. Satya Prasad, learned Senior Counsel, would request us to direct the learned Single Judge to take up this Writ Petition, along with two other Writ Petitions, out of turn. We have no reason to doubt that, on a request being made for an early hearing, the learned Single Judge shall give it its due consideration.
The Writ Appeal, however, fails and is, accordingly, dismissed. Miscellaneous Petitions pending, if any, shall also stand dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs.
_________________________________ (RAMESH RANGANATHAN, ACJ)
____________________ (M. GANGA RAO, J)
23rd October, 2017
pnb
1 AIR 1982 AP 443
2
THE HON’BLE THE ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE RAMESH RANGANATHAN
AND
THE HON’BLE Mr. JUSTICE M. GANGA RAO
Writ Appeal No.1474 of 2017
Date: 23.10.2017
pnb
2 issues framed by the court
Whether ordering notice and deferring hearing of a writ petition constitutes a ‘judgment’ within the meaning of Clause 15 of the Letters Patent, attracting a right of appeal.
Whether a writ appeal against proceedings in a writ petition seeking early hearing is maintainable.
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
Kunala Subbarao vs. P. NagaratnayammaReferred¶6
Kunala Subbarao vs. P.Nagaratnayamma
Ramesh Ranganathan
M. Ganga Rao
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
