Telangana High Court
WP/17424/2005 of Bokka Sri Lakshmi, Vs The District Collector, on 29 December 2009
SRI JUSTICE C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY WRIT PETITION NO.17424 OF 2005 Dated 29th December, 2009 Between: Bokka Sri Lakshmi …Petitioner and The District Collector and four others …Respondents Counsel for the petitioner : Sri Kanakamedala Ravindra Kumar Counsel for respondents 1, 3 &
THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY
WRIT PETITION NO.17424 OF 2005
Dated 29thDecember, 2009
Between:
Bokka Sri Lakshmi …Petitioner
and
The District Collector and four others …Respondents Counsel for the petitioner : Sri Kanakamedala Ravindra KumarCounsel for respondents 1, 3 & 4 : None appearedCounsel for respondent No.2: Sri A.Vishnuvardhan ReddyCounsel for respondent No.5: Sri M.V.Suresh 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:
In this writ petition, the petitioner sought for a Mandamus todeclare the inaction of respondent No.3 in disposing of appeal dated25.02.2004 filed by respondent No.5 against order dated 23.01.2004 ofrespondent No.1 as illegal.
The petitioner contested as Corporator for 23[rd] Division ofRajahmundry Municipal Corporation in the elections held on22.01.2002. The said Division was reserved for persons belonging toB.C community. Respondent No.5 was declared elected in the saidelection. As the petitioner came to know that respondent No.5 did notbelong to B.C community, she filed a petition before respondent No.1seeking cancellation of the caste certificate issued by the MandalRevenue Officer, Rajahmundry Urban, East Godavari District in favourof respondent No.5. After a detailed enquiry, respondent No.1 passedorder dated 23.01.2004, cancelling the caste certificate of respondentNo.5. Against the said order, respondent No.5 filed appeal beforerespondent No.3. As the application for granting stay was not disposedof by respondent No.3, respondent No.5 filed W.P.No.5204 of 2004.The said writ petition was disposed of by this Court, by order dated16.09.2004, with the direction to respondent No.3 to dispose of theappeal filed by respondent No.5 within a period of six weeks. Thelimited grievance of the petitioner in this writ petition is that despite thedirection given by this Court, in the above mentioned writ petition,respondent No.3 has not been disposing of the appeal.
At the hearing, Sri M.V.Suresh, learned counsel appearing forrespondent No.5, on instructions, submitted that the appeal filed by hisclient was dismissed more than one and half years back.
In view of the said fact, the cause in the writ petition does notsurvive for consideration and the writ petition is, accordingly, disposedof as infructuous.
C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY, J
Dated 29[th] December, 2009vrn