This order dismisses a writ petition under Article 226 as infructuous because the cause of action no longer survives for adjudication. No costs were awarded.
Writ petition dismissed as infructuous with no costs awarded.
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.
[3280 ]
HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction)
FRIDAY, THE TWENTY SECOND DAY OF JULY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY TWO
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE ABHINAND KUMAR SHAVILI AND
THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE N.V.SHRAVAN KUMAR
WRIT PETITION NO: 13565 OF 2009
Between:
...PETITIONERS
AND
...RESPONDENTS
Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of lndia praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavrt frled therewith, the High Court may be pleased to issue a writ order or direction partacularly one in the nature of Writ of Certiorari after calling for the records pertarning to the order in OA No. 5647 of 2008 dt. 11-6-2009 whrch rs the Common Order in OA No. 524212007 and batch on the file of the Hon'ble AP Administrative Tribunal. Hyderabad and quash the same as being illegal, arbitrary and contrary to the presidential order.
LA. NO:1 OF 201 M P. NO: 21876 OF 2010)
Between:
,. PETITIONERYPROPOSED RESPONDENT
AND
... RESPONDENTS/PETITIONERS IN W.P.NO.13565 OF 2OO9
...RESPONDENTS/RESPONDENTS
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 to permit Petitioner co!-ne on record as respondent No. 4 & 5 in WP No. 13565 of 2009
l.A. NO: 4 OF 2009(V/PMP. NO: 29473 OF 2009)
Between:
...PETITIONER/PROPOSED RESPONDENT
AND
... PETITIONER/RESPONDENT
... RESPONDENT/RESPONDENTS
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 to permit ' uecome on record as respondent No 4 & 5 in W.P.No. 13565 of 2009. fet-fa, c1
Counsel for the Petitioners: SRl. M.PANOURANGA RAO
Counsel for the Respondent No.1 & 2: GP FOR TRANSPORT
Counsel for the Respondent No.3: -
The Court made the following: ORDER
IION'I}I,T SRI.IUSTICI' ABHINAND KUMAR SIIAVILI ANT)
II()N' III,E SRI .IUS'I'ICE N.V.S[IRAVA N KIj M A R
W.P.No.I3565 of 2009
0RDER rn., rts.rt:
Whcn thc mattcr is taken up lor hcaring, lcarncd counscl lbr thc pctitioncr; has infbrrred the Cou( that thc ri'rit petition has bccomc inlructuous as the cause in the writ pctition docs not survive f<rr ad,udication.
Rccording thc said submission, thc Writ Pe'tition is disnrissed as in ll'uctuous No costs.
MiscclLincous pctitions pcnding, if any, shall stand closcd.
SD/-K.VENKAIAH ASSIST/{21A GISTRAR //TRUE COPY//
To,
SECNON OFFICER
BSR
8S
v
HIGH COURT
DATED:2210712022
ORDER
WP.No.1356li of 2009
'4a
// .\ .7*
CJ auli:
(.)
oQ
a,i a'r.<br>.i.l
C i.l,
DISMISSING OF W.P.
AS INFRUCTUOUS
WITHOUT COSTS
o (t
L(,*
G. Ananth Reddi
K. Manik Rao
K. Hanmantha Reddy
V. Shankar
Government of Andhra Pradesh
The Transport Commissioner AP
Abhinand Kumar Shavili
N.V.Shravak Kumar
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
