Petitioners filed writs challenging inaction in approving a sports society and conduct of events. Court found cause does not survive after completion of construction, dismissing petitions as infructuous.
No relief; petitions dismissed as infructuous without costs.
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 FOR THE SI rso.;';i 31E,35 l::3ji:,#,iAr HYDERABAD
WEDNESDAY, THE FIFTEENTH DAY OF SEPTEI\4BER TWO THOUSAND AND fWer.rrV Or.re
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE ABHINAND KUMAR SHAVILI
Betwee n:
WRIT PETITIO N NO: 24 160 F 20.t3
AND
petition under Arlicte 226 of the constitution of ,.on oirfr[t13]i:"J: circumstances stated in the affidavit fired therewith, the High court may be preased to issue any appropriate writ, order or direction, preferabry a writ in the nature of writ of mandamus decraring the action of the respondent No.2 and 3 in not considering the representation of the petitioners dt.1g-1 1-2012 for conducting erection of respondent no 4 society and also in conducting sports evident trom 28-01-2013 to 04-02_20.13 as illegal, arbitrary and u nconstitutiona L
WPMP .N O: 2939 F 2013
Petition under Section 151 CPc praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the pelition, the High court may be pleased direct the respondents not to conduct any sports events till the completion of Erection of respondent No.4 society. WPMP. NO: 2940 0F 2013
Petition under Section 151 cPc praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High court may be pleased direct the respondents No 2 and 3 to consider the representaron of the petitioner dt' 1s-'r 1-2012 for conducting fresh erections of the respondent No.4 society. Counsel for the petitioners: SRl. K, JAGADISHWAR REDDY
COUNSEI fOrthc RCSPONdCNT NOS.1 & 2: SRI NAMAVARAPU RAJESHWAR RAO,
ASSISTANT SOLICITOR GENERAL
Counsel for the Respondent No.3: Gp FOR REVENUE
Counsel for the Respondent No.4:SRl B. SUDHAKAR REDDy AND SMT NEERAJA REDDY
The Court made the following: ORDER
IION'BLE SRI JUS'TICE ABHINAND KUMAR SHAVILI
W. P. No-24 16 0F 2013
O-BDE&
Lelrned c()Lrnsel appearing for the petirioners submits that the cause in this rvrit petition does not survive for ad judication and hence, the writ petition has become infructuou s.
Recording the said submission, the $7rit petition is
disrnissed as infructuous. No costs.
Miscellaneous peritions, if any, pending shall stand
c Iosed.
SD/- R.KARTHIKEYAN ASfiISTANT REGISTRAR
//TRUE COPY//
SECTION FFICER
To, 1. One CC to Sri K. JagadishwarReddy,Advocate [OPUC]2. iwo CCs to GP forRevenue, High Court for the State of Telanganaat Hyderabad. [OUT] 3. Oi1" CC to S'ri NainavarapuRajeshwarRao, Assistant Solicitor Generil[OPlJCl 4. on; ac io Sii e. suona6rReddv andSmt NeerajaReddvAdvocate[oPUC] 5. Two CD Copies fJ. One Spare Copy CHR +--
HIGH COURT
DATED:1510912021
ORDER
W.P.No.2416 of2013
E STAI€,
1
a
z
o)o 05 0cl202l .Lc)
4tl
*
DISMISSING THE WRIT PETITION AS !NFRUCTUOUS WITHOUT COSTS
L, \o ^
1 issue framed by the court
Whether writ petitions challenging inaction in sports event approvals survive for adjudication after construction completion.
2 provisions across 2 enactments
Gandhi Institute
S. Sita Rama Rao
Government of India
G. P. for Revenue
S. Sudhakar Reddy
Neeraja Reddy
Abhinand Kumar Shavili
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
