Disposed

Cabinet Secretary, Union of India, New Delhi and Another v. G.Suryanarayana Reddy, Hyd and 2 Others

Telangana HC5 Jul 2022WA/945/2014

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Common judgment in a Writ Appeal where the High Court of Telangana disposed of the matter as infructuous, noting that all underlying writ petitions had been dismissed erstwhile by the Learned Single Judge.

What did the court decide?

The Writ Appeals are disposed of as infructuous; pending miscellaneous applications stand closed; no order as to costs.

Cabinet Secretary, Union of India… — Constitutional and Fundamental Rights | Telangana HC (2022)

¶1

¶2

HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD

¶3

TUESDAY, THE FIFTH DAY OF JULY

¶4

TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY TWO

¶5

PRESENT

¶6

THE HONOURABLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE UJJAL BHUYAN AND

¶7

THE HONOURABLE MRS JUSTICE SUREPALLI NANDA

¶8

WRIT APPEAL Nos.998 & 945 of 2014

¶9

WRIT APPEAL NO: 998 OF 2014

¶10

Writ Appeal under Clause 15 of the Letters Patent against the order passed dt.29-04-2014 in W.V.M.P.No.751 ot 2014 in W.P.No.5772 of 2014, on the file of the High Court.

¶11

Between:

¶12

Ministry of Defence, Represented by General Officer Commanding (GOC), Andhra Sub-Area, Hyderabad.

¶13

AppellanURespondent No.1

¶14

AND

¶15

B. Krishna Vijay Rao,S/o B. Shankar Rao Occ: Advocate, RIo: Plot No. 53/A, Street No-3, Satya Sai Enclave, Military Dairy Farm Road, Kanajiguda, Tirumulgiri, Secunderabad.

¶16

.Writ Petitioner/Respondent

¶17

Secunderabad Cantonment Board, Represented by it's Chief Executive Officer (CEO), Having it's office at Court Complex, City Civil Courts, S-D.Road, Secunderabad.

¶18

Commissioner of Police, Hyderabad City Police Commissionarate, Basheerbagh, Hyderabad.

¶19

Additional Commissioner of Police (Traffic), Hyderabad City Police Commissionarate, Basheerbagh, Hyderabad.

¶20

Greater Hyderabad Municipal Corporation, Rep. by its Commissioner, Tank Bund, Hyderabad.

¶21

(R.5 is suo motu impleaded as per Court Order dated 14-3-2014)

¶22

(R-2 is not necessary party in this Writ Appeal.)

¶23

...Respondents/Respondent No's 2 to 5

¶24

I I

¶25

¶26

THE HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE UJJAL BHTN'AN

¶27

AND

¶28

THE HONOURABLE MRS JUSTICE SUREPALLI NANDA

¶29

WRIT APPEAL Nos.998 & 945 of 2Ol4

¶30

COMMON .IUDGMENTi Per tlrc Hon'ble the Chief Justice Lrjjat Bhugan)

¶31

I \

¶32

Heard Mr. B. Mukherjee, learned counsel appearing on behalf of Mr. Namavarapu Rajeshwar Rao, learned Assistant Solicitor Gcne ral ol lndia lor the appellants and Mr. P. Raja Snpathi Rao. learned counsel for respondent No.1/writ petitioner.

¶33

The related writ appeals were Iiled against order of the learned Single Judge refusing to vacate interim order granted in favour of respondent No.1/writ petitioner. The related u'rrt petitions are W.P.Nos.5772 of 2014 & 5782 of 2011.

¶34

In the hearing today, we have been informed that both the above writ petitions have been dismissed by the Iearned Single Judge uide order dated 26.09.2014. Il that be

¶35

.-:-

¶36

¶37

I1Cl & SM-T W.A.Nos.998 & 945 of 2014

¶38

I I

¶39

the position, no live issue survives lor adjudication in the two w,rrt appeals.

¶40

Accordingly, the two Writ Appeals are disposed of as infructuous. However, there shall be no order as to costs.

¶41

As a sequel, miscellaneous applications pending, if

¶42

any, in these Writ Appeals, shall stand closed.

¶43

SD/- A.V.S.S.G.S.M.SARMA DEPUT}REGISTRAR //TRUE COPY/I (:Lh

¶44

SECTION OFFICER

¶45

To,

¶46

One CC to Sri Namavarapu Rajeshwara Rao, Assistant Solicitor General loPUCl

¶47

fwo CCs to GP for Home, High Court for the State of Telangana at Hyderabad . [our]

¶48

One CC to SMT. A. DEEPTHI(SC FOR GHMC) [OPUC] 4 One CCto SRl. P. RAJA RAJA SRIPATHI RAO Advocate RAO Advocate Advocate [OPUC] A One C Cto SRI PRABHAKAR PERI Advocate [OPUC] 6 One CCto SRI B. SUDHAKAR REDDY Advocate [OPUC] 7 Two C D Cop les B One Spare copy

¶49

CHR cJPA.-.

¶50

SRl. P. RAJA RAJA SRIPATHI RAO Advocate RAO Advocate Advocate [OPUC]

HIGH COURT

DATED:0510712022

COMMON JUDGEMT

1S. 6
(: 'x-
2 r sEP 2[2
t,/

¶55

W.A.Nos.998 & 945 of 2014

¶56

DISPOSING OF THE WRIT APPEALS AS INFRUCTUOUS WITHOUT COSTS

¶57

--
/-
av
M
Ql'*
1

Cabinet Secretary, Union of India, New Delhi and Another v. G.Suryanarayana Reddy, Hyd and 2 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Cabinet Secretary, Union of India, New Delhi and Another v. G.Suryanarayana Reddy, Hyd and 2 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

News Item published Vs State of Telangana

Kodicherla Anjalaiah and 15 others Vs State of Telangana and 5 others

Butham Vamshikrishna Vs State of Telangana and 4 others

M/s. Venkata Sai Potteries (P) Limited Vs Deputy Commercial Tax Officer and 3 Others

Prl Secy, Revenue Dept, Hyderabad and 3 Others Vs Gpa Holder, Dr. Pasupaleti Nirmala Hanumantha Rao Charitable

M/s. BrahMos Aerospace Private Limited Vs Assistant Commissioner (Ct) (Stu) - II