The High Court of Andhra Pradesh dismissed the writ appeal for non-prosecution. The appellant appeared without counsel despite notices, leading the bench to close the matter.
Appeal dismissed for non-prosecution; pending miscellaneous applications closed; no costs.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH :: AMARAVATI HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE ARUP KUMAR GOSWAMI, CHIEF JUSTICE & HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE NINALA JAYASURYA
WRIT APPEAL No. 133 of 2021
(Taken up through video conferencing)
Vema Prasad, S/o. Raghavulu, aged 56 years, R/o.7-28, Munamnenivaripalem, Chimakurthy Mandal, Prakasam District.
…..Appellant
Versus
The State of Andhra Pradesh, rep. by its Principal-Secretary to Animal Husbandry, Dairy Development, Fisheries, A.P. Secretariat, Velagapudi, Guntur District and others.
…. Respondents
Counsel for the appellant
: -None-
Counsel for respondents Nos.1 to 4
: Government Pleader for Fisheries
ORAL ORDER
Dt.17.09.2021
(Per Arup Kumar Goswami, CJ)
This writ appeal is preferred against an order dated 11.12.2020 passed by the learned Single Judge in W.P.No.23651 of 2020, dismissing the writ petition filed by the writ petitioners. The prayer made in the writ petition is as follows:
“. ..to issue a Writ of Mandamus declaring (a) the action of person in charge committee of the 5th respondent cum Fisheries Development Officer, Ongole, admitting respondents 7 to 42 as contrary to provisions of G.O.Ms.No.74 of Animal Husbandry, Dairy Development & Fisheries (F.II) Department dated 21.10.2011 and clause 4(a) and 4(b) of bye laws of the 5th respondent society and the provision of APCS Act, 1964 and rules framed thereunder; (b) declaring the action of the respondents in not including the 2nd petitioner, who was one of
2
the Director of the earlier committee in voters list as illegal, arbitrary and violative of the principles of natural justice, provisions of the APCS Act 1964, Rules and Bye-laws of the Society; (c) direct 6th respondent to rectify the voter list by removing respondents 7 to 42 and including petitioner No.2 and then only conduct elections to the 5th respondent society and (d) pass such other order or orders.”
2. After considering the submissions of learned counsel for the parties, the learned Single Judge observed as follows:
“ The petitioners’ main grievance appears to be noninclusion of the 2nd petitioner and wrong inclusion of the respondents 7 to 42, in the voters list, as member of the 5th respondent society, for which the petitioners are having effective statutory remedy before the competent authority under the Act, as the members are admitted by the person in charge of the 5th respondent society. The validity or otherwise of the admission of the respondents 7 to 42 as members cannot be adjudicated by this Court, under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, as disputed questions of fact do arise for consideration, which requires conduct of enquiry and this Court will not ordinarily embark on enquiry to decide the lis.”
3
that he would not appear in this case any more and in order to enable the appellant to make alternative arrangements, had prayed for listing the case after three weeks.
“ Perused the orders of this Court dated 07.07.2021 and 29.07.2021.
The order dated 07.07.2021 reads as follows:
“Mr. G. Vijaya Babu, learned counsel for the appellant, submits that he will not appear in this case any more and in order to enable the appellant to make alternative arrangements, prays for listing this case after three weeks. Prayer is allowed. List accordingly.”
The order dated 29.07.2021 reads as follows:
“Perused the order dated 07.07.2021. It appears that none has been engaged for the appellant till date.
List this case after four (4) weeks.”
A memo was filed by Mr. G. Vijaya Babu, learned counsel, along with a copy of track consignment. In the memo, it is stated that no objection vakalat was sent to the appellant by registered post with acknowledgment due on 16.04.2021 and the same was received by the appellant on 26.04.20201.
None has entered appearance on behalf of the appellant.
List this case again after three weeks.
We make it clear that if there is no representation on behalf of the appellant on that day, orders as may be considered appropriate will be passed.“
4
6 . It was noticed in the aforesaid order dated 26.08.2021 that the appellant had received the notice sent by the counsel on 26.04.2021.
ARUP KUMAR GOSWAMI, CJ NINALA JAYASURYA, J
BLV
5
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH :: AMARAVATI
HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE ARUP KUMAR GOSWAMI, CHIEF JUSTICE & HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE NINALA JAYASURYA
WRIT APPEAL No.133 of 2021
17th day of September, 2021
BLV
1 issue framed by the court
Whether the writ appeal filed by the appellant stands dismissed for non-prosecution due to absence of representation on behalf of the appellant.
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
Ch. Srinivasa Rao and Another v. District Collector/ElectionDistinguished¶22
Ch. Srinivasa Rao and Another v. District Collector/Election, 2007(3) ALD 197
Vema Prasad
The State of Andhra Pradesh
Arup Kumar Goswami
Ninala Jayasurya
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
