Legal Document View

Unlock Advanced Research with PRISMAI

- Know your Kanoon - Doc Gen Hub - Counter Argument - Case Predict AI - Talk with IK Doc - ...
Upgrade to Premium
[Cites 3, Cited by 0]

Telangana High Court

R. Vithaleswara Rao vs Union Of India, on 12 October, 2022

Author: Abhinand Kumar Shavili

Bench: Abhinand Kumar Shavili

    THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY
                        AND
  THE HON'BLE SMT JUSTICE KONGARA VIJAYA LAKSHMI

               WRIT PETITION No.15384 of 2002

                           12.10.2017
Between:

R. Vithaleswara Rao

                                                      ..Petitioner
                                And
Union of India, rep. by the Secretary, Home Department, New Delhi
and another
                                                   ..Respondents

Counsel for the petitioner: Sri C. Saran Reddy

Counsel for the respondents: None appeared.

The Court made the following:
                                     2




ORDER:

(Per the Hon'ble Sri Justice C.V.Nagarjuna Reddy) This writ petition is filed for the following relief:

"........to issue a writ of Mandamus or any other appropriate writ or direction declaring the explanation to Section 13(i)(e) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 (for short, "the Act") defining the known source of income and restricting the same only to the income intimated to the employer in accordance with the provisions of law or rules for the time being applicable to a public servant as illegal, arbitrary and violative of Articles 14 and 21 of the Constitution of India and consequently declare the same as unenforceable."

At the hearing, Sri C. Saran Reddy, learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that during the pendency of the Criminal Appeal No.537 of 2001 filed by the petitioner against his conviction under the Act this writ petition was filed questioning the vires of explanation to Section 13(i)(e) of the Act and that during the pendency of this writ petition, the criminal appeal was dismissed whereby the conviction of the petitioner was confirmed.

In the light of the above subsequent event, the learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the cause in the writ petition does not survive for adjudication.

Accordingly, the writ petition is dismissed as infructuous. No order as to costs.

As a sequel to disposal of the writ petition, W.P.M.P. No.19266 of 2002 is disposed of as infructuous.

______________________________ C.V. NAGARJUNA REDDY, J ________________________________ KONGARA VIJAYA LAKSHMI, J Date:12.10.2017.

Bss/Gk.

3

HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE C.V. NAGARJUNA REDDY AND HON'BLE SMT JUSTICE KONGARA VIJAYA LAKSHMI WRIT PETITION No.15384 OF 2002 (per Hon'ble Sri Justice C.V. Nagarjuna Reddy) Date:12.10.2017.

Bss/Gk.