Telangana High Court
WP/6723/2003 of CH.CHINA RAMKRISHNA RAJU Vs PANCHAYAT SECY GRAM PANCHAYAT WG AND 2 ORS on 31 December 2009
SRI JUSTICE C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY WRIT PETITION NO.6723 OF 2003 Dated 31st December, 2009 Between: China Ramakrishnam Raju …Petitioner and The Panchayat Secretary and two others …Respondents Counsel for the petitioners: None appeared Counsel for the respondents: ---- The Court
THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY
WRIT PETITION NO.6723 OF 2003
Dated 31st December, 2009
Between:
China Ramakrishnam Raju …Petitioner
and
The Panchayat Secretary
and two others …Respondents
Counsel for the petitioners: None appeared Counsel for the respondents: ---- 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:
“It is therefore prayed that this Hon’ble Court maybe pleased to issue a writ, order or directionmore particularly one in the nature of writ ofMandamus for a direction to the respondents tostop the release of drain water into thepetitioner’s land situated in Sy.No.496, 506 and526 at Yendaganda Village, Undi Mandal, WestGodavari District forthwith as the respondentsavail the existing drainage system in existenceby declaring the action of the respondents inreleasing the drain water into the petitioner’sland as illegal and suffers public interest.”
On 29.12.2009, there was no representation for the petitioner.Therefore, the writ petition was adjourned for today to be posted underthe caption “for dismissal”. Even today, there is no representation forthe petitioner. Hence, it is reasonable to presume that the petitioner isnot interested in pursuing his cause in the writ petition.
The writ petition is, therefore, dismissed in default.
Dated 31[st] December, 2009vrn
C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY, J