A writ petition challenging the rejection of appointment under displaced persons quota was dismissed for default due to the petitioner's failure to appear and prosecute the matter.
Dismissal of Writ Petition for default.
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
THURSDAY, THE SEVENTEENTH DAY OF OCTOBER TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FOUR
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE SMT JUSTICE SUMATHI JAGADAM
WRIT PETITION TRANSFERED FROM APAT NO: 9 OF 2021
Between:
T Chennamma, Wife of Late Guraiah, aged 34 years, Occ Unemployee Resident of Prabhunagar, Somireddypalle, Gram Panchayat B. Mattam Mandal, Kadapa District. ...Petitioner AND
...Respondents
Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India may be praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed therewith, the High Court may be pleased to direct the respondents declaring the action of the 4th respondent in issuing Office Order No.SE.NTRTGP.KDP.AB.EC. 6.7581.12.835, dated 15-11-2012 issued by the 4th respondent rejecting the claim of the applicant for appointment under displaced persons quota as illegal, arbitrary and against the principles of natural justice and consequently direct the respondents to appoint the applicant under displaced persons quota
r
Counsel for the Petitioner(s): SRI. D L PANDU
Counsel for the Respondent: GP FOR SERVICES III
The Court made the following: ORDER
APHC010214372021
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH SfflH AT AMARAVATI
[3459]
(Special Original Jurisdiction)
THURSDAY ,THE SEVENTEENTH DAY OF OCTOBER TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FOUR
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE SMT JUSTICE SUMATHI JAGADAM
WRIT PETITION TRANSFERED FROM APAT NO: 9/2021
Between; T Chennamma ...PETITIONER AND The Principal Secretary ...RESPONDENT Counsel for the Petitioner: i K 1.D L PANDU Counsel for the Respondent: 1.GP FOR SERVICES III
The Court made the following:
ORDER:
As there was no representation for the petitioner on09.08.2024,the matter was adjourned. When the matter was listed on04.10.2024also,there was no representation for the petitioner, hence, the matterwasdirectedtobe listed today under the caption ‘for dismissal’. Even today, there is no representation for the petitioner. It appears thatthepetitionerisnotinterested to prosecute the case.
Therefore, this Writ Petition (AT) is dismissed fordefault.Thereshallbe no order as to costs.
As a sequel, miscellaneous petitions, if any, pendingshallstandclosed.
SD/. Q. HELA NAIDU //TRUE COPY// ASSISTANT REGISTRAR
SECTION OFFICER
To,
3. THREE CD Copies
AL
HIGH COURT
DATED:17/10/2024
ORDER
WP(AT).No.9 of 2021
I’ 0 3 APR 2025 g
Current Section .
S«s^gpATCVj^g<^
DISMISSING THE WP(AT) WITHOUT COSTS
1 issue framed by the court
Whether to proceed when the petitioner fails to appear in person.
T Chennamma
The Principal Secretary, Irrigation and CAD Department
SUMATHI JAGADAM
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
