Dismissed

Tamatam Veerabhadra Rao, v. The State of Andhra Pradesh

Andhra Pradesh HC1 Feb 2024WP/20810/2016

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Petitioner challenged mandatory under-bark girth measurement conditions in forest permission proceedings as arbitrary and violative of natural justice via writ and miscellaneous petitions filed in 2016, which was dismissed as infructuous on adjourninent of the cause. No substantive relief was granted.

What did the court decide?

The Writ Petition was dismissed as infructuous; miscellaneous petitions stood closed. No maximum yearly per-mission condition was quashed.

Tamatam Veerabhadra Rao, Vs The State of… — Writ and Judicial Review | Andhra Pradesh HC (2024)

¶1

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH :: AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction)

¶3

FRIDAY, THE SECOND DAY OF FEBRUARY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FOUR

¶4

PRESENT

¶5

THE HON’BLE SMT. JUSTICE V.SUJATHA

¶6

WRIT PETITION NO: 20810 OF 2016

¶7

Between:

¶8

Tamatam Veerabhadra Rao, S/o Venkanna, Aged 65 years, Timber Business R/o. Uppalapaadu, Gandepalli Mandal, East Godavari District.

¶9

...PETITIONER

¶10

AND

¶11

The State of Andhra Pradesh, rep., by its Principal Secretary, Department of Forest, A P. Secretariat Buildings, Hyderabad.

¶12

It!® Principal Chief Conservator of Forests, Andhra Pradesh, Aranya Bhavan, Hyderabad.

¶13

The Divisional Forest Officer, Kakinada Division, Kakinada, East Godavari District.

¶14

The Forest Range Officer, Yeleswaram, East Godavari District.

¶15

...RESPONDENTS

¶16

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 an appropriate writ, order or direction more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus declaring the Proceedings^inRc.No. in so far as 2688/2016-P2 dated 30-05-2016 issued by the(^'respondent imposing a condition that to "Prepare under bark girth measurements lists... while granting permission, as arbitrary, illegal, unconstitution al and violation of Principles of Natural Justice and to consequently set aside the same.

¶17

LA. NO.-inp 2016(\a/piuid NO: 25S2fi np

¶18

Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstancesci stated in the affidavit filed in support of the writ petition, /pay be pleased to the High Court suspend the operation of .^688/2016-P2 dated the Proceedings in Rc.No. -> 30-05-2016 issued by the 3'"' imposing a condition respondent in so far as J that to "Prepare under bark girth lists..." while measurements granting permission during the pendency of the writ petition.

¶19

Counsel for the Petitioner: FOR ' SRi KK. JYOTHI PRASAD

¶20

Counsel for the Respondent s: GP FOR FORESTS The Court made the following: ORDER

¶21

¶22

HONOURABLE SMT. JUSTICE V.SUJATHA

¶23

WRIT PETITION No.20810 of 2016

¶24

ORDER:

¶25

When the matter is taken up today, Ms.D.Vasavi Ratna Kumari, counsel representing Mr.K.Jyothi Prasad, learned counsel for the petitioner(s) submits that the cause in the Writ Petition does not survive for further adjudication. 5. Recording the sadd submission, the Writ Petition is dismissed as infructuous. There shall be no order as to costs.

¶26

Miscellaneous petitions pending, if any, in this Writ Petition shall stand closed. SOI- SHAIK MOHD. RAFI ASSISTANT REGISTRAR

¶27

//TRUE COPY//

¶28

¶29

To, SECkN OFFICER 1. One CC to Sri K. Jyothi Prasad, Advocate [OPUC] 2. Two CCs to GP for Forests, High Court of Andhra Pradesh. [OUT] 3. Three C.D. Copies.

¶30

Cnr

¶31

HIGH COURT

¶32

) DATED:02/02/2024 f ' t

*» • V f

ORDER

WP.No.20810 of 2016

DISMISSING THE W.P. AS INFRUCTUOUS WITHOUT COSTS

Tamatam Veerabhadra Rao, v. The State of Andhra Pradesh

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Tamatam Veerabhadra Rao, v. The State of Andhra Pradesh

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

The Vinnakota Sc Fishermen Co. Operative Society Vs the State of Ap

Sankella Rambabu Vs The State of Andhra Pradesh

Davuluri Swetha Sri Vs the State of Andhra Pradesh

Kgr B.Ed College Vs The State of Andhra Pradesh

Yanati Sreedhar Reddy Vs the State of Ap

Sri Vidyaniketan College of Education Vs the State of Andhra Pradesh