Dismissed

Kallam Rajasekhar Reddy v. State of Andhra Pradesh

Andhra Pradesh HC9 Sept 2021WP/3253/2020

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Petition challenged a Municipal Administration G.O. Government submitted instructions not to press the order into service. Court disposed of the petition due to lack of cause of action but reserved liberty to file fresh proceedings alleging violation of interim orders.

What did the court decide?

Writ petition disposed of on ground of no surviving cause of action; liberty reserved to initiate proceedings for violation of interim orders.

Kallam Rajasekhar Reddy Vs State of Andhra Pradesh — Land Acquisition | Andhra Pradesh HC (2021)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH :: AMARAVATI

¶2

HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE ARUP KUMAR GOSWAMI, CHIEF JUSTICE & HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE NINALA JAYASURYA

¶3

WRIT PETITION No. 3253 of 2020

¶4

(Taken up through video conferencing)

¶5

Kallam Rajasekhar Reddy, S/o. Panakala Reddy, aged about 43 years, Agriculture, R/o.2-47, Penumaka Village, Tadepalli Mandal, Guntur District, and others. …..Petitioners

¶6

Versus

¶7

The State of Andhra Pradesh, rep. by its Principal Secretary, Municipal Administration & Urban Development Department, Velagapudi, Amaravati, Guntur District, and others.

¶8

…. Respondents

¶9

Counsel for the petitioners : Mr. K. V. Bhanu Prasad Counsel for the respondents : Mr. B. S. Shivaji, Government Pleader

¶10

ORAL ORDER

¶11

Dt.09.09.2021

¶12

(Per Arup Kumar Goswami, CJ)

¶13

Heard Mr. K. V. Bhanu Prasad, learned counsel for the petitioners. Also heard Mr. B. S. Shivaji, learned Government Pleader attached to the office of the learned Advocate General appearing for the State respondents.

¶14

Challenge in this writ petition is to a Notification under G.O.Ms.No.97 (Municipal Administration & Urban Development (G) Department), dated 06.02.2020.

¶15

¶16

Mr. B. S. Shivaji, basing on the instructions of the Government submits that the aforesaid G.O., shall not be pressed into service by the Government and therefore no cause of action survives in the writ petition.

¶17

Mr. K. V. Bhanu Prasad submits that there is violation of the interim order passed earlier by this Court in this case.

¶18

Having regard to the submissions of the learned counsel for the parties, while disposing of this writ petition on the ground that there is no surviving of cause of action, we reserve liberty to the petitioners to initiate appropriate proceedings, if according to them, there have been deliberate violation of the interim order passed earlier, notwithstanding the disposal of this case.

¶19