Dismissed

Chand Pasha S/o. Shaik Hussain v. The Govt., of A.P.

Telangana HC10 Apr 2024WP/3580/2014

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Justice K. Lakshman dismissed Writ Petition No. 3580 of 2014 as in fructus after the counsel for the petitioner submitted that the cause no longer survives, rendering the petition devoid of basis for adjudication.

What did the court decide?

Petition dismissed as in fructus; no specific relief granted as disposition was based on maintainability and survival of the suit.

Chand Pasha S/o. Shaik Hussain Vs… — Constitutional and Fundamental Rights | Telangana HC (2024)

[³¹⁶⁸ ]

l I

I $ ir :l l i1 i tl

H GH OURT FOR THE STATE OF^TELANGANA } AT HYDERABAD 1^{(SpecialOriginalJurisdiction)}

¶5

i WEDNESDAY, THE TENTH DAY OF APRIL TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FOUR

¶6

¶7

'RESENT

¶8

rue Jor.rounABLE sRl JUsrtcE K.LAKSHMAN

¶9

Between:

¶10

ri l*o,, orr,r,oN No: 3580 oF 2014 1-

¶11

Chand Pasha, Lro. ,nu,n Hussain,^{Aqed about49 years, occ: USDP} Operator, SK Cllmmunications, H^{No.3-97, Main Road ManapaduV andtvl,} [/ahabubnagar District - 509 128

;

t t i

...PETITIONER

AND

1 The Govt., of A.P ., Rep. by^{its Prl. Secretary, Dept., of lnformation} Technology, A.P,., Secretariat,^Hyderabad

¶19

The Director, edS.,^{(E-SEVA) Govt., of A.P., M.C.H., Building, Road No.7,} Banjara Hills, Hy'derabad-34.

¶20

The Joint CottecLr^{& Addl. Director, e-Seva, MahabubnagarDistrict,A'P ,509} 001

¶21

¶22

The Chief Ooerdtinq Officer,^{AP Online Ltd, Kohinnor e-park, Plot No.1,} Jubilee Garden$ Cyberabad^{Hyderabad - 500 081 A.P}

¶23

The TahasilOar, ilvlandat^{Revenue Office, Manapadu Mandal Mahabubnagar} District, A.P-5Ogt128

¶24

I ,i I li ,,1

¶25

t I I I jl I 1 il li

¶26

Sri K Naresh Kulnar, S/o.^{Nageshwar Rao, aged about 25 years,Occ:Mee}

¶27

S"r, Operatorr At Opp to Manopad MPDO Office, Manapad V and M'

¶28

,un" "on.,*,,.n of^nda J:,::::T: ""::::*il,",,.': rcumstances st,t"Olin the affidavit^{filedtherewith, the High Courtmay be} leased to issue an #propriate writ, order^{or directionsmore particularlyonein} he nature of Writ of fiandarrr,^{declaring the action of the respondentNo.3 in} oetitioler's name from the^{list annexedto the proceedings} moving the o. D2lAad haar.-"a"llora. dated.01-01-2014^{and selecting the respondent No 6} r establishm .", Enrorment center^{(PEC) at ManapaduMandar} "[[Lr.*r"ent

¶29

¶30

ti ;i.l

¶31

I t ead Qtr., Mahabubn lgar Dist., as illegal, arbitrary and contraty to the^guidelines ssued in^proceedin vide Lr.No.390/CSC/Aadhaar/2O13, dated.28-06-2013^by s8,f he respondent No.2 and also amounts to violation of the articles^{14 and 16 of the} onstitution of lndia afrd consequently direct the official^{respondentsto allot the} Permanent Enr.otr"lt Center^{(PEC) at[t/anapaduMandal Head Qtr.,} ahabubnagar Dist., tI the petitioner henceforth

¶32

it l,

¶33

: .A. NO: 1OF 2014 WPMP. NO:4406^{OF 2014}

¶34

,t I Petitron under Section 151 CPC^praying that^{in the circurnstances statedin} ' J he affidavil filed in suiport^{of the petition, the HighCourt may be pleased to direct} he respondents not tJallot^{the Permanent Enrolment Center (t']EC)at Manapadu} andal Head Qtr., M#abubnagar Dist.,^{to the respondent No.0in contrary to the} uidelines issued by tile respondent^{No.2, pendingdisposal of the writ petition.}

¶35

i lA. NO: 2 OF 201 MP. NO:6246OF 2014

¶36

li $ :r t Petition under S'ection 151 CPC^{praying that in the circutrstancesstatedin} i) rlti he t$affidavit filed in suflport of the^{petition, the HighCourtmaybe pleased to direct} t, 4i he respondent No elto restore the [/ee Seva services to^th 3^{Petitioner'sMee} tr eva Center at M,rt oadu Mandal Head Qtr., Mahabubnergar^{District,A.P.} I henceforth u d $ ounsel for the Petiti ner: SRI RAM^{SINGH REPRESENTINGFOR} fr SRI BETHI VENKATESWARLU II ounsel for,n" *"rp[ hdent No.1,2 and 4: ASST.^{ADDL ADVCTCATEGENERAL} .t

¶37

ounsel for tn" n..ptndent Nos.3 and 5: GP FOR REVENUE

¶38

ounsel for tne Resptndent No.6:-I rl he Court -"u" ttt" ttllowing: ORDER .t ri f t l

¶39

t I l j

¶40

¶41

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE K.LAKSHMAN

¶42

Writ Petition No.3580 of 2014

¶43

ORDER

¶44

Sri Rarn Singh, leamed counsel representing Sri^Bethi

¶45

Venkateshwarlu. learned counscl lirr the^petitioner, orl^{instructions,} would submit that the causc in thc^present wrir^{pctitiondoesnot}

¶46

survive and has becotne inliuctuous

¶47

In view ol-the said subnrissiort, this writ^petition is disrnissed^as infiuctuous.

¶48

As a sequeI thereto, miscellaneous^petitions, if^{any, pending in} this writ petition shall stand closcd.

¶49

SD/- K. SAI^KUMARI ASSISTANT^REGISTRAR

¶50

I I I I I .t I I F i I I

//TRUE^COPY//

SECTI FFICER

1 One CC to^Sri hi Venkateswarlu,^{Advocate [OPUC]} Z Two CCs^{to Thd,Advocate General,High Court for theState of Telangana, at} 3- TwoHvd erabad [O^{CCs to G} or Revenue, High Court^{for the State of Telangana} '^at Hvd erabad [OU

¶55

Two^{CD Copies}

J KKS \ v

I I.i,i,l, I

!- I

Il i; l

HIGH COURT DATED:1OlO4l 024

¶62

ORDER

¶63

1E
i-
4 .$ 9*
o
(;J
o $)=== J
<br>*
3 H

¶64

WP.No.3580 o^,2014 i il

¶65

it i ri

¶66

¶67

DISMISSING E WRIT PETITION t I S INFRUCTUbUS il,l ITHOUT COITS. ; il li il I bv^ \

¶68

I ll 1 Ir I ( J :,

Chand Pasha S/o. Shaik Hussain v. The Govt., of A.P.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Chand Pasha S/o. Shaik Hussain v. The Govt., of A.P.

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

Smt. Prameela Vs The State of Telangana

Kotigari Shailesh Kumar Vs The State of Telangana

Bolla Laxmamma Vs The State of Telangana

Kommu Laxmaiah Vs State of Telangana

S.Dara Singh Vs the State of Telangana

Smt. Banoth Sunitha, Vs The State of Telangana