Telangana High Court
WP/29153/2010 of Boya Madhu Vs The Andhra Pradesh Lokayuktha AND Upa Lokayuktha on 28 December 2012
Ms. JUSTICE G.ROHINI AND THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE B.N.RAO NALLA WRIT PETITION NO.29153 OF 2010 Dated: 28.12.2012 Between Boya Madhu …Petitioner AND The Andhra Pradesh Lokayakutha and 4 others …Respondents THE HON’BLE Ms. JUSTICE G.ROHINI AND THE HON’BLE
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.
THE HON’BLE Ms. JUSTICE G.ROHINIANDTHE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE B.N.RAO NALLA
WRIT PETITION NO.29153 OF 2010
Dated: 28.12.2012
BetweenBoya Madhu
AND
The Andhra Pradesh Lokayakutha
and 4 others
…Petitioner
…Respondents
THE HON’BLE Ms. JUSTICE G.ROHINIANDTHE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE B.N.RAO NALLA
WRIT PETITION No. 29153 OF 2010
ORDER:(Per Hon’ble Ms.Justice G.Rohini)
This writ petition is filed seeking a declaration that the orderpassed by the 1[st] respondent – A.P.Lokayuktha, dated 30.09.2010 incomplaint No.556/2010/B1, is arbitrary and illegal.
As we could see, the said order was passed by way of an interimorder directing the Mandal Parishad Development Officer, OrvakalMandal, Kurnool District as well as Grama Sabha, Nannoor Gram Panchayat and the Project Director, NREGS, Kurnool to consider theclaim of the complainant and see that he is appointed in any of theworks as Field Assistant and submit a report to the 1[st] respondent bythe next date of hearing.
When the matter is taken up for consideration, it is brought to ournotice by Sri Y.Ravindra, the learned counsel appearing for the 1[st]respondent that during the pendency of this writ petition, a report wassubmitted by the Project Director stating that it would not be possible toappoint the complainant as a Field Assistant in view of the restrictionsimposed and that in view of the said report, the complaint was closedby the 1[st] respondent.
As the complaint itself is closed, nothing survives for adjudicationin the Writ Petition and accordingly, the same is dismissed asinfructuous. No costs. Consequently, Miscellaneous Petitions, if any,pending in this writ petition shall stand closed.
_____________
G.ROHINI, J
Date: 28.12.2012Ivd/Pab/Klp
_____________________
B.N.RAO NALLA, J
THE HON’BLE Ms. JUSTICE G.ROHINIAnd
THE HON’BLE Sri. JUSTICE B.N.RAO NALLA
IVD/PAB
WRIT PETITIONNO. 29153 of 2010
Dated: 28-12-2012