Telangana High Court
WP/28180/2008 of Azmera Laxmi, Vs The District Employment Officer, on 26 December 2008
COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) FRIDAY, THE TWENTY SIXTH DAY OF DECEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND EIGHT PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY WRIT PETITION NO:28180 of 2008 Between: Azmera Laxmi, W/o. Late M. Pandu, R/o. H.No. 5-128, Ambedkar
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD(Special Original Jurisdiction)
FRIDAY, THE TWENTY SIXTH DAY OF DECEMBERTWO THOUSAND AND EIGHT
PRESENT
THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY
WRIT PETITION NO:28180of2008
Between:
Azmera Laxmi, W/o. Late M. Pandu, R/o. H.No. 5-128, Ambedkar Nagar Colony, Garla Village andMandal, Khammam District.
..... PETITIONER
AND
1 The District Employment Officer, Khammam, Khammam District.
2 M. Veeramani, W/o. late M. Pandu, R/o. E-201, N.S.P. Canal Colony, Khammam, Khammam District. R/o. E-201, N.S.P. Canal Colony, Khammam, Khammam District.
.....RESPONDENTS
Counsel for the Petitioner:MR.JOGRAM TEJAVAT
The Court made the following :
Citations and Judicial Treatment
Cited by
0
Decisions in the index citing it
Cites
0
Decisions referred to
In this index
0
Of the decisions it cites
Overruled / Questioned
0
No negative treatment found
Loading the citing and cited decisions…
This judgment in the centre: on the left the decisions it cites, on the right the decisions citing it. Colour is the treatment; choose a decision to open it.
ORDER:
This writ petition is filed for the following substantive relief:
“For the reasons stated in the accompanying affidavit, thepetitioner herein prays that this Hon’ble High Court may be pleasedto issue an appropriate writ order or direction more one in thenature of Writ of Mandamus declaring the action of therespondents in trying to disburse the terminal benefits of thepetitioner's Late Husband Mr. Maruthi Pandu in Collusion with the2nd respondent is illegal, arbitrary, unjust and biased and againstthe principles of Natural justice and consequently direct theRespondent N. 1 to release the entire terminal Benefits of LateMaruthi Pandu to the petitioner herein.”
After arguing the case for some time, Sri Jogram Tejavath, learnedcounsel for the petitioner seeks permission of the Court to withdraw thewrit petition.
The request of the learned counsel is accepted and the writpetition is dismissed as withdrawn.
As a sequel to dismissal of main petition as withdrawn,WPMP.No.36935 of 2008 filed by the petitioner for interim relief isdisposed of as infructuous.
C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY, J
26[th] DECEMBER, 2008.
kvni