Back
GANNAMANENI RAMAKRISHNA PRASAD
Pullela Ramamurthy, S/o. Seshagiri Rao – Appellant
Versus
State Of Andhra Pradesh – Respondent
ORDER:
Heard Sri Kambampati Ramesh Babu, Sri N. Siva Reddy, respective learned Counsel for the Writ Petitioners in this batch and Sri P. Vara Prasad, learned Asst. Government Pleader for Co-operation.
2. Resolutions, if any, passed by the General Bodies of the respective Respondent Societies have not been placed on record in these Writ Petitions.
3. In this premise, these Writ Petitions stand dismissed. No order as to costs.
4. Interlocutory Applications, if any, stand closed in terms of this Order.
The necessity of providing supporting documentation in writ petitions to substantiate claims made against respondent societies.
Judicial resources should not be utilized for causes that no longer require adjudication, leading to dismissal of the writ petition as infructuous.
The principle of adhering to established judicial precedents in the interest of consistency and fairness in legal proceedings.
Withdrawal of a writ petition under Article 226 is permissible, affirming the petitioners' right to discontinue legal action without further judicial orders.
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
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
