Dismissed

P.Sitaramaiah v. a.Narender and 4 Others

Telangana HC15 Sept 2022WA/334/2011

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Telangana dismissed the writ appeal and associated interim application as infructuous. The court held that the underlying writ petition was dismissed by the Single Judge in 2019, leaving nothing to be decided on the 2021 appeal.

What did the court decide?

Writ Appeal (WA No. 334 of 2011) and Interim Writ Appeal Petition (I.A. No. 3 of 2011) dismissed as infructuous with no costs.

P.Sitaramaiah Vs a.Narender and 4… — Constitutional and Fundamental Rights | Telangana HC (2022)

¶1

[^32es ]

¶2

¶3

HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA, AT HYDERABAD

¶4

THURSDAY, THE FIFTEENTH DAY OF SEPTEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY TWO

¶5

PRESENT

¶6

THE HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE UJJAL BHUYAN AND THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE C. V. BHASKAR REDDY

¶7

WAMP NO.743 0F 2011

¶8

IN/AND

¶9

WRIT APPEAL NO: 334 OF 2011

¶10

wA NO.334 0F 2011:

¶11

Writ Appeal under clause 15 of the Letters Patent preferred against the order in WPMP.No.133312011 in WP.NO.1094/201^.1, dt. 28-01-2011on the file of the High Court.

¶12

Between:

¶13

P. Sitaramaiah, S/o Sivaramakrishnaiah H.No.4-1-52211, Shakkaranagar Cross road, Bodhan, Nizambad District.

¶14

...APPELLANTITHIRD PARTY

¶15

AND

¶16

A.Narender, S/o Hanumaiah Business R/o ManikBandar Village, Matluru Mandal' Nizamabad District

¶17

....REspoNDENT/wRrr^pETrroNER

¶18

The Government of Andhra Pradesh, lndustries & Commerce (SPIU & SAND) Department, Secretariat Building , Hyderabad. Rep.by its Secretary.

¶19

The Director, Department of Mines and Geology, 8th Floor, BRKR Bhavan,

¶20

. If,!i33,!tii1tSi?:??fr%r Mines & Georosy cum Member, convener, District Level Committee for Sand Auctions, Nizamabad, Nizamabad District.

¶21

1. M/s. AP. Mineral Development Corporation Limited, Rep. by its Managing Director' Ameerpet' Hyderabad

¶22

...RE''.NDENTS/RE'''NDENTS

¶23

l.A. NO:2 OF 2011(WAMP. NO:743OF 2011

¶24

Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstahces stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased to dispense with filing of certified copy of the order dl. 28-01-2011 made in WPMP.NO.133312011in WP.No.1094/20'1 l,pending disposal of the WA

¶25

l.A. NO: 3 Ot-- 201 WAMP. NO: 744 OF 20 1

¶26

Petition unc :r Section 151 CPC praying that in the :ircur'lstances stated in the affidavit filed n support of the petition, the High Court n ay be pleased to suspend the o ler dt. 28-01-2011 made in WI']l\IP.l{o.1333/2011 in WP.No. 1094/201 1 pending disposal of the WA Counsel for the A^,pellant: SRI G. V. SRAVAN KUMAR(NC)T PRESENT)

¶27

Counsel for Respr ndent No. 1 : SRI ANDAPALLI SANJEE r' i(UlVlAR

¶28

Counsel for Resp< ndent Nos. 2 to 4: SRl. RAMANA, cP FOR MINES AND GEOLOGY

¶29

Counsel for Respc rdent No. 5: SRI V. SUBRAHMANYAM

¶30

The Court made th r following: ORDER

¶31

TIIF. HON'ltl-1. THF- CHIIF II ]S'TTCF] I IIIAI,ItI IIJYAN

¶32

AND

¶33

THE HON'BLE SRI IUSTICE C.V.!HASKAR REDDY WAMP,No.743 of 2011 inl& V.A.No.334 of 2011

¶34

COMMONJUDGMENT^per the Hon'hb rhe ftnl lr*rc l /t/ Bhupn)

¶35

None has appeared for the appellant on call though Mr. Ramana, learncd Government Pleadet for N{ines and Gcology representing respondents No.2 to 4 is present

¶36

'l'hc writ appeal is preferrcd against thc interim ordcr datcd 28.01.2011 passed by the lcarncd Single Judge in (l)N{P.No.1333 ot 2011 iri \r.P No.1094 of 2UI

¶37

l.carncd Government Plcader sul)mrts that W.I'].No.1094 of 2011 was dismisscd on 05.09.2019 as being infructuous. The re fore , nothing survives in tl'ris appcal.

¶38

In view of above, the writ appeal as well as WAN{P.No.743 of 2011 filed ft-rr dispensing with the requiremcnt of fiting a ccrtified copy ol thc impugned order, are dismissed as infructuous. No costs

¶39

i\s a sequel, miscellaneous petitions, pending if any, stand dismissed

¶40

To,

¶41

i. ?*:^{EE"t,i5f J,'3rfl#ffi&t""$;,b"f,':","t,,he S,a,e or re ansana}

¶42

o 8.11c^{to V. Subrahmanvam'Advocate(oPUC)}

¶43

Two CD^CoPies

¶44

One^SPareCoPY

¶45

[sagN\

¶46

¶47

HIGH COURT
DAI'EID: 1510912022
<br>1 CLAT
:-, ir
RY
,v :'-
Ul\t
.Jn) =q)
I
at{,
cr, a''.
c,,
COMMC)N .,IUDGMENT

¶48

WAMP NO.743 0F 2011 IN/AND WRIT APPEAL NO: 334 OF 2011

¶49

DI SMISSING THE WAMP & IVRIT APPEAL AS INFRUCTUOUS, YYIT,IOI,II COSIS

¶50

\ ,{
L7 1\ LL

P.Sitaramaiah v. a.Narender and 4 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

P.Sitaramaiah v. a.Narender and 4 Others

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

M/S Vaibhav Vs Joint Comm. of Income Tax Range 3 Hyd

M/s Badnnath Steels Private Limited Vs The Income Tax Officer

The Secretayr, Rta, Medchal Ranga Reddy Dist and Anothers Vs Korra Bhojiya Naik

Sri Amit Kumar Agarwal, R.R. District. Vs S. Pandu Ranga Reddy, Hyderabad and 3 Others.

Sri Amit Kumar Agarwal, Kothapet, Rr Dist. Vs N. Pulla Reddy, Rr Dist. and 4 Others

M/s. Vemulapalli Brothers Vs Assistant Commissioner (Central Taxes)