Dismissed¶20

V. Ravi Kumar, Nizamabad and Another v. the Managing Director, Hyd and Another

Telangana HC11 Sept 2025WP/2392/2007

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Telangana High Court; W.P. No. 2392 of 2007; Article 226 Constitution of India; writ of certiorari; AP State Police Housing Corporation Limited; Managing Director letters HRS/4234/2005-06/933 dated 12-05-2005, HRI/4234/2006-07/2006 and HN/4234/2006-07/6027 dated 28-11-2006; dismissed as infructuous; no order as to costs; Namavarapu Rajeshwar Rao, J.; J.R. Manohar Rao for petitioners; Ramalingeswara Rao Kocharla for respondents.

What did the court decide?

In view of the petitioners' counsel's submission that the cause in the writ petition does not survive for adjudication and the petition has become infructuous, the writ petition is dismissed as infructuous with no order as to costs. ¶20

V. Ravi Kumar, Nizamabad and Another Vs the… — Writ and Judicial Review | Telangana HC (2025)

¶1

t33041

¶2

,NTHEHTGH*":H:IL{ffiffJ.:TELANGANA

¶3

(SPet

¶4

rHtrRsDAY'+niBfffi Xlg'#=tffi^ffi een

¶5

PRESENT

¶6

THE^{HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICENAMAVARAPURPt"tESHWARRAO}

¶7

'"T"o:osBffi R:{,i,ff ";:::";--X"",Xl,lI::::il::':# ...pEtloNERs

¶8

, $,i5l*T3rffibn,v^{"'- r}

¶9

o*1#JHtriHffi{,"i.FTffiifl,H.'#Hi':,3',11i$'5l1ff F:,*Housins

¶10

..RESPONDENTS

¶11

PetitionunderArticle226of.theConstitutionoflndiaprayingthatinthe circumstances^{statedin the affidavitfited therewith' the High court may be} pleased to issue^{a writ order or direction more in the natureof writ of certiorari} calling^{for the records relatingto the letterlt{o' HRS/4234I2005-06/933 dated12-5-} 2O05 issued^{by the Managing DirectorAP State Police HousingCorporation} Limited and^{consequentiat[etter No. HRI/4234t2@6-07t2006dated 28-11-2006} issued by the^{Managing DirectorAP State Police HousingcorporationLimited'} Hyderabad and the letter^{l.lo. HN4234t2006-07/6027dated 28-11-2006 issuedby} the Managing Director AP^{StatePoliceHousing CorporationLimited Hyderabad} and^quash the same by holding^{them as il{egal, bad andarbitrary.}

¶12

Counsel for the Petitioner: SRI J.^{R. MANOHAR RAO}

¶13

Counsel for the Respondents: SRI RAMALINGESWARA^{RAO KQCHARLA}

¶14

The Court made the following: ORDER

¶15

I I \ I

¶16

THE

¶17

SRT JUSTTCE NAN,AVARAPU RAJESHWAR RAO

¶18

ORDER:

¶19

Sri J.R. Manohar Rao, learned counsel for the petitioners, informed th is Court that the cause in the Writ petition does not suryive for adjudication anct the Writ petition has become infructuous.

¶20

In view of the above submission, this Writ petition is dismissed as infructuous. There shail be no order as to costs.

¶21

Miscellaneous petitions pending, if any, shail stand crosed.

¶22

¶23

Sd/.A.JAYASREE REGISTRAR //TRUE COPYII r\ SECTTON OFFICER To, I 1. One CC to Sri J. R. Manohar Rao, Advocate [OpUC] 2. one cc to sri Ramaringeswara Rao Kocharra Kota topucl 3. Two CD Copies TJ PMK w

HIGH COURT

DATED:1 110912025

rl 3

WP.No.2392 ot 2007

DISMISSING THE WRIT PETITION AS INFRUCTUOUS WITHOUT COSTS

¶29

( oR THE S 14
,.)
(-
t')'
2 0 r\r0t, 2U[

P4rcHEO