This order dismisses a Writ Petition challenging the rejection of permission to conduct marriage functions. The court held the petition should be dismissed as the contract period with the third respondent had expired and the petitioners relationship fell outside the purview of Article 226.
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 SRI JUSTICE A.RAMALINGESWARA RAO WRIT PETITION No.26047 of 2017
ORDER :
This Writ Petition was filed challenging the action of the respondents in not allowing the petitioner to conduct marriages and functions at Pushpagiri Mutt, Tirumala, Chittoor District.
Miscellaneous petitions, if any, pending in this writ petition shall stand closed. There shall be no order as to costs.
A.RAMALINGESWARA RAO , J APRIL 26, 2018 YVL
2
THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE A.RAMALINGESWARA RAO
WRIT PETITION No.26047 of 2017
Date:26.04.2018
YVL
3 issues framed by the court
Whether the petitioner has locus standi under Article 226 of the Constitution to challenge the non-allowance of marriage functions.
Whether the Writ Petition is maintainable after the expiry of the contract period with the third respondent.
Whether the petitioner can conduct marriages at Pushpagiri Mutt, Tirumala without a valid contract.
Petitioner
Respondents
A. Ramalingeswara Rao
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
