Dismissed

Tadangi Rama Rao, v. Ganta Appanna

Andhra Pradesh HC1 Sept 2020WA/81/2020

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This concise oral order dismissed an application for leave to file a writ appeal. The High Court held that the government had already filed a writ appeal challenging the identical order, rendering the current petitioners' application moot and denying them locus standi.

What did the court decide?

Leave to file the writ appeal was denied; the writ appeal was rejected for lack of locus standi.

Tadangi Rama Rao, Vs Ganta Appanna — Writ and Judicial Review | Andhra Pradesh HC (2020)

¶1

¶2

HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH : AMARAVATI

¶3

CHIEF JUSTICE J.K. MAHESHWARI

¶4

¶5

JUSTICE K. SURESH REDDY

¶6

I.A.No.1 OF 2020 in/and W.A No.81 of 2020

¶7

(Taken up through video conferencing)

¶8

Tadangi Rama Rao, S/o Sitham Naidu, Aged 60 years, Occ: District Secretary, Akhila Bharata Adivasi Vikasa Parishad, R/o Shobalatha Devi Colony, Kurupam Mandal, Vizianagaram District, and (3) others.

¶9

.. Petitioners/Appellants.

¶10

Versus

¶11

Ganta Appanna, S/o late Adanna, Aged about 69 years, Occ: Retired MPDO, Mantikonda village, Kurpam Mandal, Vizianagaram District and (55) others

¶12

..Respondents.

¶13

Counsel for the Petitioners/Appellants : Sri J. Satya Prasad

¶14

Counsel for respondents 1 to 47 : Sri M. Krishna Rao Counsel for respondent 48 to 51 : GP for social welfare Counsel for respondents 52 to 56 : GP for Revenue

¶15

ORAL ORDER

¶16

Dt: 01.09.2020

¶17

per J.K. Maheshwari, CJ

¶18

This Writ Appeal has been filed by some persons along with I.A.No.1 of 2020, which is an application seeking leave to file appeal against the order dated 29.11.2019 in W.P.No.12675 of 2019, stating that they are the members of Akhila Bharata Adivasi Vikasa Parishad.

¶19

¶20

In the affidavit filed in support of the above I.A.No.1 of 2020, it is not stated that after filing the application by the writ petitioners for grant of caste certificates, the appellants submitted their objections for not granting such certificates. The bald allegation made by the appellants before this Court is not tenable. Therefore, leave cannot be granted.

¶21

It is to be noted that the Government has already filed W.A.No.248 of 2020 challenging the order passed by learned single Judge in W.P.No.12675 of 2019, dated 29.11.2019.

¶22

In view of the above, we are not inclined to accept I.A.No.1 of 2020 filed by the appellants seeking leave to file the appeal.

¶23

Accordingly, I.A.No.1 of 2020 is dismissed. Consequently, the Writ Appeal stands rejected on the ground of not having locus standi. No costs. All the miscellaneous applications shall stand rejected.

¶24

J.K. MAHESHWARI, CJ K. SURESH REDDY, J

¶25

Nn.

¶26

¶27

HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH : AMARAVATI

¶28

CHIEF JUSTICE J.K. MAHESHWARI

¶29

¶30

JUSTICE K. SURESH REDDY

¶31

I.A.No.1 OF 2020 in/and W.A No.81 of 2020

¶32

(per J.K. Maheshwari, CJ)

¶33

Dt: 01.09.2020

¶34

Tadangi Rama Rao, v. Ganta Appanna

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Tadangi Rama Rao, v. Ganta Appanna

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Ruthala Gangu Naidu, Vs The State of Andhra Pradesh

The District Collector, Vs Singam Maheswar Reddy

The District Collector, Vs Vaddemanu Eswara Reddy

Kattamreddy Ananth Rupesh, Vs The State of Andhra Pradesh

M/s. Vigneswara Agritech, Vs The State of Andhra Pradesh

R Vijaya Bhaskar Vs P Ranjit Basha