Writ petition challenging a National Highway-216 notification for want of denotification of an earlier notification was dismissed as infructuous after counsel submitted the cause did not survive; 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.
li
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH::AMARAVATI
(Special Original Jurisdiction)
FRIDAY, THE TWENTIETH DAY OF SEPTEMBER
TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FOUR
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE VENKATESWARLU NIMMAGADDA
WRIT PETITION NO: 12213 OF 2017
Between:
...PETITIONERS
AND
...RESPONDENTS
Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India is filed praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed therewith, the High Court may be pleased to issue an appropriate Writ,orderordirectionmore particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus declaring the action of the 3rd respondent in issuing Notification with regard to the National Highway-216 dt: 10-03-2016 in Andhra Jyothi Newspaper without denotifying the earlier notification published on 30-09-2014 in Sakshi Daily Newspaper as arbitrary, illegal and contrary to law and consequently direct the O'"* respondent to cancel the Notification dt. 10-03-2016 published in Andhra Jyothi Newspaper with regard to the National Highway-216 in the interest of justice and be pleased.
f
—w
I.A. NO: 1 OF 2017(WPMP. NO: 15175 OF 2017)
Petition under Section 151 CPC is filed praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased to stay all further proceedings in the Notification dt. 10-03-2016 published in Andhra Jyothi Newspaper with regard to the National Highway-216, pending disposal of the main writ petition.
Counsel for the Petitioner: SRI K.SAI KRISHNA MOHAN RAO
Counsel for the Respondent N0.1: DEPUTY SOLICITOR GENERALOF
INDIA
Counsel for the Respondent N0.2 & 3: SRI S.S.VARMA (SC FOR NHAI) The Court made the following: ORDER
r
-1^
APHC010209932017
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI WM (Special Original Jurisdiction)
(Special Original Jurisdiction)
[3329]
FRIDAY ,THE TWENTIETH DAY OF SEPTEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FOUR
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE VENKATESWARLU NIMMAGADDA
WRIT PETITION NO: 12213/2017
Between:
Kola Srinivas Rao and Others
...PETITIONER(S)
AND
The Union Of India and Others
...RESPONDENT(S)
Counsel for the Petitioner(S):
Counsel for the Respondent{S):
2.S S VARMA (SC FOR NHAI)
The Court made the following:
THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE VENKATESWARLU NIMMAGADDA
WRIT PETITION NO: 12213/2017
ORDER:
Heard the learned counsel for the petitioners and thelearnedcounselfor the respondents.
When the matter is taken up for hearing, learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the cause in the present WritPetitiondoesnotsurvive and no further adjudication is necessary in the presentWritPetition.Therefore, the Writ Petition becomes infructuous.
Recording the said submission. Writ Petition is dismissedasinfructuous There shall be no.order as to costs.
As a sequel, miscellaneous petitions, if any, pending shall stand
closed.
Sd/- K. LAKSHWIl PAVANl assistant registrar
//TRUE COPY// I^OFFICER SE'
I
To,
KRISHNA MOHAN RAO Advocate [OPUC] 1, One CC to SRI K.SAI general of INDIA, Advocate SRI DEPUTY SOLICITOR 2 One CC to [OPUC] VARMA (SC FOR NHAI) Advocate [OPUC] 3. One CC to SRI S.S.
MBT
«
a
HIGH COURT
DATED:20/09/2024
ORDER
WP.No.12213of2017
0 6 FEI 2025
if * Current Section . 5
-er'
XifSoeTC -
DISMISSING THE W.P
AS INFRUCTUOUS
WITHOUT COSTS
2 provisions across 2 enactments
Kola Srinivas Rao
Kola Suryachandravathi
Kola Murali Krishna
Kola Udaya Bhaskar Rao
Bandaru Sarayya
Uppati Nagaratnam
Venkateswarlu Nimmagadda
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
