In Writ Petition No. 20488 of 2009, the High Court of Andhra Pradesh at Amaravati dismissed the filing for non-prosecution after the petitioner's counsel reported an inability to secure instructions from the absent client.
The writ petition is dismissed for non-prosecution; no order as to 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.
I
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH::AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction)
WEDNESDAY, THE SIXTEENTH DAY OF OCTOBER TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FOUR
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE NINALA JAYASURYA AND THE HONOURABLE SMT JUSTICE SUMATHI JAGADAM
WRIT PETITION NO: 20488 OF 2009
Between:
Maturi Seshagiri Rao, S/o Sarveswara Rao Cultivation Eluru W.G Dist
...Petitioner
AND
...Respondents
Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed therewith, the High Court may be pleased to issue any appropriate writ order or direction more particularly one in the nature of writ of Certiorari calling for the records relating to order in OP No 601 of 1992 dt. 19-2-2008 on the file of the 1st respondent and quash the same by declaring it is illegal void and contrary to Rule 6(2)& 7 of A.P Land Grabbing(Prohibition) Act 1988 and the Full Bench Judgment of this Hon'ble Court (2005 (2) ALD 675) and consequentlyrehearthe case and dispose of the same in accordance with law
4
I.A. NO: 1 OF 2009(WPMP. NO: 26716 OF 2009)
Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in thecircumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased direct the respondents 2 and 3 herein not toalienatetheSchedule property in LOOP No 601/1993 pending disposal of theaboveWP
Counsel for the Petitioner: SRI K SITA RAM
Counsel for the Respondent No.1: GP FOR REVENUE
Counsel for the Respondent No.2: SRI SAI GANGADHAR CHAMARTHY
The Court made the following: Order
•V;,
APHC010151262009
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI
[3494]
(Special Original Jurisdiction)
WEDNESDAY, THE SIXTEENTH DAY OF OCTOBER TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FOUR
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE NINALA JAYASURYA THE HONOURABLE SMT JUSTICE SUMATHI JAGADAM
WRIT PETITION No.20488 of 2009
Between:
AND
...RESPONDENT(S):
Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed therewith,theHighCourt may be pleased to issue any appropriate writ orderordirectionmore particularly one in the nature of writ of Certioraricallingfortherecords relating to order in OP No 601 of 1992 dt. 19-2-2008onthefileofthe1st respondent and quash the same by declaring it is illegalvoidandcontrary to Rule 6(2) & 7 of A.P Land Grabbing (Prohibition)Act1988andtheFull Bench Judgment of this Hon'ble Court (2005 (2) ALD 675) and consequently rehear the case and dispose of the same in accordance with law
2
wp_20488_2009
lA NO: 1 OF 2009 (WPMP 26716 OF 2009)
Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in thecircumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased direct the respondents 2 and 3 herein nottoalienatethe Schedule property in LGOP No 601/1993 pending disposaloftheabove W.P.
Counsel for the Petitioner:
1.KSITARAM
Counsel for the Respondents:
1.GP FOR REVENUE
2.SAI GANGADHAR CHAMARTY
3..
The Court made the following ORDER:
At the time of considering the matter, it is represented by the learned counsel for the petitioner that despite his best efforts, he could not secure instructions from the petitioner as there was no response from him. It appears that the petitioner is not interested in pursuing the matter.
- Accordingly, the writ petition is dismissed for non-prosecution. No order as to costs. Miscellaneous petitions pending, if any, shall stand closed.
Sd/- V SATYANARAYAN A DEPUTY^ REGISTRAR //TRUE COPY// SEi ICER
To,
HIGH COURT
DATED;16/10/2024
^& current21 ® f
ORDER
WP.No.20488 of 2009
WRIT PETITION IS DISMISSED FOR NONPROSECUTION
1 issue framed by the court
Whether the writ petition shall be admitted and disposed of on merits given the absence of the petitioner.
3 provisions across 3 enactments
MATURI SESHAGIRI RAO
SPECIAL TRIBUNAL CUMDIST JUDGE PROHIBITION ACT ELURU
KOLLA GIVINDA RAO
MATURI SATISH
NINALA JAYASURYA
SUMATHI JAGADAM
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
