Smt. Ramya Rao Regulapati vs The State Of Telangana And 4 Others

Citation : 2021 Latest Caselaw 13 Tel
Judgement Date : 4 January, 2021

Telangana High Court
Smt. Ramya Rao Regulapati vs The State Of Telangana And 4 Others on 4 January, 2021
Bench: Raghvendra Singh Chauhan, B.Vijaysen Reddy
            HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA

      THE HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE SRI RAGHVENDRA SINGH CHAUHAN
                                  AND
               THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE B. VIJAYSEN REDDY

                 WRIT PETITION (PIL) No.216 of 2020

                             04.01.2021
Between:
Mrs. Ramya Rao Regulapati
                                                           ...Petitioner
and

The State of Telangana,
Rep. by its Chief Secretary,
Secretariat, Hyderabad
and 4 others.

                                                       ...Respondents

Counsel for the petitioner : Letter Counsel for the respondents: Mr. Harender Prashad Spl. Government Pleader The Court made the following:

2

JUDGMENT: (Per the Hon'ble the Chief Justice Sri Raghvendra Singh Chauhan) By order dated 05.10.2020, this Court had taken cognizance of a letter sent by Mrs. Ramya Rao Regulapati, wherein she has pointed out that despite the existence of the Telangana State Commission for Women, no Chairperson was appointed to the said Commission.

Mr. Harender Prashad, the learned counsel for the State, submits that by G.O.Ms.No.20, Department for Women, Children, Disabled and Senior Citizens (Schemes-I), dated 27.12.2020, in fact, the State Government has appointed Smt. Vakiti Sunitha Lakshma Reddy, as the Chairperson of the said Commission. It has further appointed the other Members of the Commission. In order to buttress his plea, the learned counsel for the State has submitted a copy of the Government Order. The same shall be taken on record.

Considering the fact that not only the Chairperson, but even the other Members of the Commission have been appointed by the above mentioned Government Order, the case has become infructuous.

Therefore, the WP(PIL) is, hereby, dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs.

The miscellaneous petitions pending, if any, shall stand closed.

________________________________ RAGHVENDRA SINGH CHAUHAN, CJ ____________________ B. VIJAYSEN REDDY, J 04.01.2021 Lrkm