Telangana High Court
WP/19568/1999 of Md. Yousuf Ali Khan, Vs The Divisional Co-Operative Officer, on 26 December 2008
HIGH 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 : 19568 of 1999 Between: Md. Yousuf Ali Khan, S/o. Ahmed Ali Khan, Madgul
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 REDDYWRIT PETITION NO : 19568 of 1999
Between:
Md. Yousuf Ali Khan, S/o. Ahmed Ali Khan, Madgul Mandal, Mahaboobnagar District., R/o. H.No.16-2-509, IIIlane Malakpet, Paltan, Hyderabad-36.
.....
PETITIONER
AND
1 The Divisional Co-Operative Officer,
Nagarkurnool, Mahaboobnagar District.
2 The Prisident, Primary Agrl. Co-operative Society Limited, Arkapally, Madgul Mandal, Arkapally, Madgul Mandal, Mahaboonagar District.
.....RESPONDENTS
Counsel for the Petitioner : None.
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 accompanyingaffidavit, it is prayed that this Hon’ble Court may be pleasedto issue a writ or direction or order more particularly one inthe nature or Writ of Mandamus declaring the inaction of therespondents in paying the subsistence allowance to thepetitioner from 1.7.98 till date is against the provisions ofAndhra Pradesh Shops and Establishment Act, Contrary toLaw and also against the Article 21 of the constitution ofIndia and consequently direct the respondents to reinstatethe petitioner as secretary of the Second respondentsociety.”
When the writ petition was taken up for hearing on 24.12.2008,no one appeared for the petitioner. Therefore, it was adjourned totoday. Even today, when the case is posted under the caption ‘forDismissal’, no one appeared for the petitioner. It is, therefore,reasonable to presume that the petitioner is not interested in pursuinghis cause in the writ petition.
The writ petition is, therefore, dismissed in default.
As a sequel to dismissal of main petition in default, interim orderdated 28.12.1999 is vacated and WPMP.No.24508 of 1999 isdismissed.
Dated:26.12.2008GJ
________________________
C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY, J