The High Court dismissed a writ petition regarding the legality of petitioner deputation to respondent banks as infructuous upon counsel's submission that the cause does not survive for adjudication, without hearing.
The writ petition 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 GOURT FOR THE I TE LANGANA [3304 ] AT HYDfJfJE DOF (Special Original .turisOiction;
MONDAY-,THE TWENTY EIGHTH DAY OF AUGUST TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTV fidi;-""'
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE NAMAVARAPU RAJESHWAR RAO
WRIT PETITION NO:18 522 0F 2018
Between:
AND
...PETITIONERS
Petition under Articre 226 or theconstitution or rndia J::TITT: circumstances stated in the affidavit fired therewith, the High court may be pleased to issue a writ of Mandamus or any other appropriate writ, order or orders, Direction or Directions to decrare the action of the respondents 1 and 2 in deputing the petitioners No-2 onwards to the 4th respondent Bank under the office order No. No.pER and HRD/07/2018-19 dated 30.o4.2018, as iilegar, arbitrary and u nconstitutionar and to issue a consequentiar direction to the
respondents1 and 2to strictly adhere to the transfer policy notified by it while transferringits officers
lA NO:1 OF 2018
Petitionunder Section 151 CPC praying that in the circums'tancesstated in theaffidavitfiled in supportof the petition'the High Courtmay lre pleasedto suspendthe Office Order No'PER&HRD/07/2018-'19dated 30'04 i1018wherebv thepetitionersNo'2 onwards have been deputed to the 4th respondent Bank' pendingdisposalof the Writ Petition
IANO:2OF2018
Between:
AND
petition under Section 151Cpc prayingthat in the circumstances stated in the affidavitfiled in support of the petition'the High Court may be pleased to Vacate theinterim orders passed in lA'No'1/2018in WF'>'No '1852212018 dt.12.06.2018
counsel for the Petitioner: SRl. VEDULA SRINIVAS Counset for the Respondent Nos. 1,2,4: Smt. V. UMA DEVI Counset for the Respondent No. 3: SRl. B.S. PRASAD
The Court made the following: ORDER
HON, sRT JUSTICE
RIIo
o
ION NO 18522 OF 2078
Today when the matter is taken up for hearing, learned counser for the petitioners fairly submit that the cause in the present writ petition does not suryive for adjudication. 2 Recording the above submission, the Writ petition dismissed aS infructuous. IS
To,
SD/. K.SREERAMA MURTHY ASSI sr4Alr REGtSTRAi //TRUE COPYII (f,D SECTION OFFICER
i.qffi FipSili {=l'ffifft ffi}"+iJ:,sf i6"' cD copies . Iff GJP
fn^/,.
i \
HIGHCOURT
DATED:28tOBl2O23
ORDER
WP.No.18522o12018
,.'-. S II\1F (]r
?-
, ll
?gTTPM
7
DISMISSINGTHE WRIT PETITION AS INFRUCTUOUSWITHOUTCOSTS
Pf.\q, .' .[Q )-3'
Various Petitioners
Andhra Pradesh Civil Supply Coop. Bank Ltd.
Vikas Bank
State Bank of India
Telangana Grameena Bank
Namasivayam Ravindranath
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
