Telangana High Court
WP/26936/2006 of Dr.Reddy, Jalendar Gaddam, Vs The Vice-Chancellor, on 27 December 2006
SRI JUSTICE N.V. RAMANA Writ Petition No. 26936 of 2006 Dated: 27.12.2006 Between: Dr. Reddy, Jalendar Gaddam, S/o G. Ganga Reddy, aged about 41 years, working as Lecturer on contract basis, Osmania University, Hyderabad. .... PETITIONER AND The Vice-Chancellor, Osmania University, Hyderabad
THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE N.V. RAMANA
Writ Petition No. 26936 of 2006
Dated: 27.12.2006
Between:
Dr. Reddy, Jalendar Gaddam, S/o G. Ganga Reddy, aged about 41years, working as Lecturer on contract basis, Osmania University,Hyderabad.
AND
.... PETITIONER
The Vice-Chancellor, Osmania University, Hyderabad and another.
.....RESPONDENTS
THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE N.V. RAMANAWrit Petition No. 26936 of 2006
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:
The main grievance of the petitioner in this writ petition is that hefiled a representation, dated 24.10.2006, under Section 6 of the Right toInformation Act, 2005 (for short ‘the Act’), seeking to supply relevantinformation with regard to roaster point followed for Groups-I, II and III inthe earlier Notification Nos. 3 of 1996 and 1 of 2003, and in the presentNotification No.1 of 2006, and when the 2[nd] respondent failed to furnish the same within the stipulated time, hepreferred an appeal under Section 19 of the Act before the 1[st] respondent-Vice-Chancellor on 24.11.2006, but no orders thereonhave been passed till date. Hence, he filed the present writ petition.
Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learnedStanding Counsel for the respondents-University. Both the counselagreed to dispose of the writ petition with a direction to the 1[st] respondent to dispose of the appeal filed by the petitioner on24.11.2006.
Since the appeal filed by the petitioner is said to be pendingconsideration before the 1[st] respondent-Vice-Chancellor, and in view ofthe agreed stand taken by both the counsel, I deem it appropriate todispose of the writ petition with the following directions:
The 1[st] respondent-Vice-Chancellor is directed to consider anddispose of the appeal, dated 24.11.2006, filed by the petitioner, andpass appropriate orders thereon in accordance with law, expeditiously,preferably within a period of three weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.
Accordingly, the writ petition is disposed of. No costs.
___________________
N.V. RAMANA, J.
Date: 27.12.2006NSR/ISL