← Library
High Court for State of TelanganaWP/5940/2001dismissed for default

Smt. K.G. Rajeswaramma v. A.P.S.R.T.C.

2015-08-06S.Ravi Kumar3 pages

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT HYDERABAD

FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AND THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH WRIT PETITION No.5940 of 2001 Between :

Smt.K.G.Rajeswaramma W/o.Sri M.Rajappa.

... Petitioner AND A.P.S.R.T.C., Rep. by their Regional Manager, Tirupathi, and five others.

... Respondents DATE OF JUDGMENT PRONOUNCED: 06.08.2015 SUBMITTED FOR APPROVAL:

THE HON'BLE JUSTICE S. RAVI KUMAR 1.

Whether Reporters of Local newspapers may be allowed to see the Judgments?

Yes/No 2.

Whether the copies of judgment may be marked to Law Reporters/Journals?

Yes/No

3.

Whether Their Ladyship/Lordship wish to see the fair copy of the Judgment?

Yes/No HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE S. RAVI KUMAR WRIT PETITION No.5940 of 2001 ORDER:

The petitioner filed this writ petition seeking a writ of certiorari to call for records relating to the impugned final order dated 27.04.2000 issued by the 1st respondent in reference No.E2/684(4)/97RM(T)/E.2/684(6)/99-RM(T) and examine the legality, propriety, regularity and correctness of the said order and quash the same declaring the final order dated 27.04.2000 issued by the 1st respondent as arbitrary in nature being violative of Articles 14 and 21 of the Constitution of India and also violative of principles of natural justice and promissory estoppel and further declare the uncommunicated proceedings issued by the 4th respondent dated 29.01.2000 as bad in law and further declare the uncommunicated letter dated 30.10.1999 issued by the 6th respondent declaring petitioner's caste as Balija, as bad in law being violative of principles of natural justice and pass such further or other order or orders that may deem fit and proper under the circumstances of the case.

2. When the matter is listed yesterday, there was no representation. Therefore, it is directed to be posted to this day under the caption 'for dismissal'. In spite of that, no interest is evinced in prosecuting the case.

3. Hence, the writ petition is dismissed for non-prosecution. No costs.

4. Miscellaneous Petitions, if any, shall stand closed.

__________________ S. RAVI KUMAR, J 6th August 2015.

mar