Telangana High Court

WP/33551/2014 of Tirumani Ramakrishnam Raju Vs The Government of Andhra Pradesh, on 31 December 2014

Cites 0, Cited by 0

OF JUDICATURE AT HYDERABAD FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AND THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH PRESENT THE HON’BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE SRI KALYAN JYOTI SENGUPTA AND THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE SANJAY KUMAR WRIT PETITION NOs.29406, 31848, 32245, 33551, 35363, 37993, 38380 AND 38581 OF 2014

Citations and Judicial Treatment

No citing decisions in the index yet

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…

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT HYDERABADFOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AND THE STATE OF ANDHRAPRADESH

PRESENT

THE HON’BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE SRI KALYAN JYOTISENGUPTA AND

THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE SANJAY KUMAR

WRIT PETITION NOs.29406, 31848, 32245, 33551, 35363, 37993,38380 AND 38581 OF 2014

DATED:31.12.2014

W.P. No.29406 of 2014

Between:

Krupasagar Reddy

and others

… Petitioners

And

The State of Andhra Pradesh,Agriculture & Cooperation (Mktg-I) DepartmentRep. by its Principal Secretary Secretariat Hyderabad and another … Respondents THE HON’BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE SRI KALYAN JYOTISENGUPTA AND

THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE SANJAY KUMAR

WRIT PETITION NOs.29406, 31848, 32245, 33551, 35363, 37993,38380 AND 38581 OF 2014

COMMON ORDER:(per the Hon’ble The Chief Justice Sri Kalyan JyotiSengupta)

The learned Advocate General for the State of Andhra Pradeshplaced a latest amendment made, vide Act No.10 of 2014, to theAndhra Pradesh (Agricultural Produce and Livestock) Markets Act,1966. When the writ petitions were filed Section 38 was inserted to thePrincipal Act. However, during the pendency of this matter, Section 38has been omitted. Therefore, the cause for filing of the writ petitionsdoes not subsisting now. A copy of the Gazette Notification regardingthe aforesaid amendment is kept on record.

Accordingly, we close the writ petitions with the aboveobservations.

Learned counsel for the petitioners says that his clients mayhave to take further action in the light of this amendment. It would beopen for the petitioners to do so, if so advised, in accordance with law.

Pending miscellaneous petitions, if any, shall also stand closed. There will be no order as to costs.

________________________

K.J. SENGUPTA, CJ

_______________________

SANJAY KUMAR, J

31.12.2014

bnr/gbs

You have used today's free searches. Sign in, for free, to keep searching without a limit.

Compass reads the judgments for you and finds the paragraphs for and against your question. Sign in to use it.

My Vault follows judgments for you and records every later decision that cites them. Sign in to keep one.

Sign in to download the court's PDF. The full text stays free to read here.

Sign in, for free, to download the court copy. Reading the full text here stays open to everyone.

Search and read Indian judgments without limits, save them to My Vault and find the relevant paragraphs with Compass.

Open the sign-in page instead