logo

This Product is Licensed to ,

Change Font Style & Size  Show / Hide
24

  •            

 
CDJ 2025 TSHC 1440 print Preview print Next print
Court : High Court for the State of Telangana
Case No : Writ Petition No. 600 of 2013
Judges: THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE LAXMI NARAYANA ALISHETTY
Parties : Chaitanya Techno School Rep. by its Secretary & Correspondent & Another Versus District Educational Officer, Khammam & Others
Appearing Advocates : For the Petitioner: P.V. Krishnaiah, Advocate. For the Respondent: Addl Advocate General.
Date of Judgment : 05-12-2025
Head Note :-
Subject
Summary :-
1. Statutes / Acts / Rules Mentioned:
- None

2. Catch Words:
- Not mentioned

3. Summary:
- A writ petition was filed seeking a declaration that the endorsement/order dated 29.12.2012 in the School Visitor’s Register of Sri Chaitanya Techno School was illegal and arbitrary, along with consequential relief.
- Counsel for the petitioners argued that the cause of action no longer existed and the petition had become infructuous.
- The court recorded the submission of the learned counsel.
- Consequently, the writ petition was dismissed as infructuous.
- No order as to costs was made.
- Any miscellaneous petitions pending in the writ petition were ordered to stand closed.

4. Conclusion:
Petition Dismissed
Judgment :-

1. This writ petition is filed to declare the action of respondent No.2 in making endorsement/order dated 29.12.2012 in the School visitor’s Register of Sri Chaitanya Techno School (English Medium), Enkuru Village and Mandal, Khammam District, as illegal and arbitrary and for consequential relief.

2. Sri T.Komala, learned counsel representing Sri P.V.Krishnaiah, learned counsel for the petitioners on record, learned Additional Advocate General, Learned Assistant Government Pleader for School Education and Ms.D.Priyanka, learned counsel representing Sri Srinivas Kapalia, Special Public Prosecutor for C.B.I, are present.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioners would submit that the cause in the Writ Petition does not survive for adjudication and the same has become infructuous.

4. Recording the aforesaid submission of the learned counsel, the Writ Petition is dismissed as infructuous. There shall be no order as to costs.

As a sequel thereto, miscellaneous petitions, if any, pending in the writ petition, shall stand closed.
 
  CDJLawJournal