SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2005 Supreme(AP) 91

ELIPE DHARMA RAO, G.ROHINI, BILAL NAZKI
Sarvepalli Ramaiah, Tirupati – Appellant
Versus
K. Srinath Reddy – Respondent


BILAL NAZKI, J.

( 1 ) WE heard these cases earlier and we came across the vigilance report which had been submitted in pursuance of the earlier orders passed by a Division Bench of this court when the writ appeals were admitted. Since that report had not been made available to the parties, we thought it proper to hear the case again and give a chance to the parties to contest the report. Accordingly copies of the vigilance report were furnished to the parties who have filed their objections.

( 2 ) THE cases are before us in view of the orders of the Division Bench which referred the matter to the Full Bench, as it found that there were earlier judgments of this Court by division Bench with regard to the same subject matter.

( 3 ) IN the first instance, we will deal with the writ appeals. Both the writ appeals have been filed against the judgment dated 17-7-2000 in W. P. No. 35618 of 1997. W. A. No. 1088 of 2000 has been filed by the state, whereas W. A. No. 1163 of 2000 has been filed by respondents 3 and 4 in the writ petition. The facts leading to filing of w. P. No. 35618 of 1997 may be summerised thus,

( 4 ) THE writ petition was filed by one sarvepalli Ramaiah challenging the o

























Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon telegram-icon
whatsapp-icon Back to top