Telangana High Court
WP/17606/2004 of G.T.V.V.L.N. Acharyulu, Vs The Member Secretary, Gurukulam, on 28 December 2004
COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) TUESDAY, THE TWENTY EIGHTH DAY OF DECEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND FOUR PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE K.C. BHANU WRIT PETITION NO : 17606 of 2004 Between: G.T.V.V.L.N. Acharyulu, S/o. G.T. Venkata Ranga charyulu, R/o.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD
(Special Original Jurisdiction)
TUESDAY, THE TWENTY EIGHTH DAY OF DECEMBERTWO THOUSAND AND FOUR
PRESENT
THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE K.C. BHANU
WRIT PETITION NO : 17606 of 2004
Between:
G.T.V.V.L.N. Acharyulu, S/o. G.T. Venkata Ranga charyulu, R/o. Seethammapeta, Srikakulam District.
AND
..... PETITIONER
The Member Secretary, Gurukulam, T.S. Bhavan, Masab Tank, Hyderabad.
.....RESPONDENT
Petition under Article 226 of the constitution of India praying that in thecircumstances stated in the Affidavit filed herein the High Court will be pleased toissue a Writ, order or direction more in the nature of Writ of Mandamus declaring theaction of the respondent counseling the transfers of PGT in Hindi without followingthe proceedings Rc.No. A1/9657/03/TGT (Hindi)/NA dated 20-7-2004 andRc.No.800/A1/2004 dated 23-7-2004 as null and void.
Counsel for the Petitioner:MR.V.H.V.R.R.SWAMY
Counsel for the Respondent No.: --
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.
ORAL ORDER:
On 2.11.2004, when the matter was called, no representation wasmade on behalf of the petitioner and no counter was filed. On18.11.2004, this Court ordered permission to the petitioner’s counselto take out personal notice to the respondents. But, so far, thepetitioner has not issued any personal notice to the respondents andfiled any proof of service.
When the matter was called again on 10.12.2004, none appeared onbehalf of the petitioner and proof of service of notice to therespondents was also not filed.
From the above facts, it is clear that the petitioner is not evincing anyinterest to prosecute the case.
In the result, the writ petition is dismissed for non-prosecution.
There shall be no order as to costs.
_______________
(K.C. BHANU, J.)
28[th] December, 2004.
bcj
To
1. The Member Secretary, Gurukulam, T.S. Bhavan, Masab Tank, Hyderabad.
2. Two C.D. copies