https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=220720 The Court dismissed the writ petition seeking a writ of quo warranto to quash the appointment of respondent No. 3 as a judge of the Andhra Pradesh High Court. It found no deliberate suppression of material facts by respondent No. 3 regarding a pending criminal case and upheld the validity of the consultation process for the appointment. The Court concluded that the writ petition lacked merit and bona fides, ordering the petitioners to pay costs and emphasizing the importance of safeguarding the judiciary from unwarranted attacks to maintain institutional integrity. en-us Mon, 04 Feb 2013 00:00:00 +0530 Wed, 06 Feb 2013 08:08:36 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=220720 The Court dismissed the writ petition seeking a writ of quo warranto to quash the appointment of respondent No. 3 as a judge of the Andhra Pradesh High Court. It found no deliberate suppression of material facts by respondent No. 3 regarding a pending criminal case and upheld the validity of the consultation process for the appointment. The Court concluded that the writ petition lacked merit and bona fides, ordering the petitioners to pay costs and emphasizing the importance of safeguarding the judiciary from unwarranted attacks to maintain institutional integrity. Case-Laws Indian Laws Mon, 04 Feb 2013 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=220720