Dismissed

Induru Rajasekhar Reddy, Nellore Dist. v. the a.P.Endowments Tribunal,Rep.by CHAIRMAN,HYD.,AND2OTRS.

Andhra Pradesh HC16 Sept 2024WP/24368/2012

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court dismissed a writ petition filed in 2012 challenging an order of the Andhra Pradesh Endowments Tribunal. The petition lapsed due to the petitioner's repeated requests for adjournment and subsequent default in prosecuting the matter in 2024.

What did the court decide?

The Writ Petition is dismissed for non-prosecution and dismissed for default. There shall be no order as to costs.

Induru Rajasekhar Reddy, Nellore Dist. Vs the a.P.Endowments Tribunal,Rep.by CHAIRMAN,HYD.,AND2OTRS. — Andhra Pradesh HC (2024) — LawSathi Research

¶1

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

¶2

TUESDAY, THE SEVENTEENTH DAY OF SEPTEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FOUR

¶3

PRESENT

¶4

THE HONOURABLE DR JUSTICE K MANMADHA RAO

¶5

WRIT PETITION NO: 24368 OF 2012

¶6

Between:

¶7

Induru Rajasekhar Reddy, S/o. Yanadi Reddy R/o. Door No. 2-248/A Jagannadharaopet, Atmakur Village & Mandal, S.P.S.R. Nellore Dist.

¶8

...PETITIONER

¶9

AND

¶10

The Andhra Pradesh Endowments Tribunal, Hyderabad, Rep. by its Chairman.

¶11

The Assistant Commissioner of Endowments, Nellore, SPSE^Nellore Dist.

¶12

The Executive Officer, Kolagani Ramaiah Satram Atmakur Village & Mandal, S.P.S.R. Nellore Dist.

¶13

...RESPONDENTS

¶14

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 a writ, order or direction more particularly one in the nature of writ of mandamus to declaring the Declaring^{theactionofthe1st}

¶15

¶16

respondent in allowing the Judgment (Award) in O.A. No. 1409/ 2010 dated 7-7-2012 filed by the 2nd and 3rd respondents is illegal, arbitrary and violation of principles of natural justice and consequently set aside the same.

¶17

j.A. NO: 1 OF 2012rWPMP. NO: 31106 OF 20121

¶18

Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased to suspend the operation of the Judgment (Award) in O.A. No. 1409/ 2010 dated 7-7-2012 of the 1st respondent, pending disposal of the main writ petition.

¶19

Counsel for the Petitioner(s): SRI. K SRINIVAS

¶20

Counsel for the Respondents 1 & 2 : GP FOR ENDOWMENTS

¶21

Counsel for the Respondent No.3 ; SRI MIAPURAM SRINIVAS RAO

¶22

The Court made the following: ORDER

¶23

APHC010032572012

¶24

IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI

¶25

[3310]

¶26

(Special Original Jurisdiction)

¶27

TUESDAY ,THE SEVENTEENTH DAY OF SEPTEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FOUR

¶28

PRESENT

¶29

THE HONOURABLE DR JUSTICE K MANMADHA RAO

¶30

WRIT PETITION NO: 24368/2012

¶31

Between:

¶32

Induru Rajasekhar Reddy, Nellore Dist.

¶33

...PETITIONER

¶34

AND

¶35

The A P Endowments Tribunal Rep By Chairman Hyd 2otrs and Others

¶36

...RESPONDENT(S)

¶37

Counsel for the Petitioner:

¶38

1.KSRINIVAS

¶39

Counsel for the Respondent(S):

¶40

1.GP FOR ENDOWMENTS

¶41

2.MIAPURAM SRINIVAS RAO

¶42

The Court made the following order:

¶43

The Writ Petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution

¶44

of India, seeking the following relief:

¶45

“....to issue a Writ, order or direction more particularly in the Writ of Mandamus declaring the^action of the respondent in allowing the judgment (award)ⁱⁿ O.A.No.1409/2010 dated 07.07.2012 filed by the 2""'^and 3'”^ respondents Is illegal, arbitrary and violation of

¶46

Principles of Natural Justice and consequently set^aside the same and pass such other order or orders as this Hon’ble Court may deem fit and proper in the circumstances of the case. ”

¶47

On the last two occasions i.e., 27.08.2024 & 10.09.2024 Sri K.Srinivas, learned counsel for the petitioner appeared and sought time. At his request, the matter was adjourned^{to17.09.2024.} Today, when the matter is called, learned counsel for^{thepetitioner} further requested time on the ground that he is handicapped^withthe bundle.

¶48

Though the matter is of the year 2012, the learned counsel for the petitioner time and again sought time. Even though, this Court granted ample time to hear the matter, learned^counselfor the petitioner seeks further time, which shows the petitioner has no interest in prosecuting this Writ Petition.

¶49

Accordingly, this Writ Petition is dismissed for nonprosecution and dismissed for default as well. There shall be no order as to costs.

¶50

As a sequel, miscellaneous applications pending, if any, shall stand closed.

¶51

//TRUE COPY//

¶52

SD/- SHAIK MOHD. RAFI ASSISTANT REGISTRAR Mav/ SECTION OFFICER

¶53

To,

¶54

One CC to SRI K SRINIVAS Advocate [OPUC]

¶55

Two CCs to GP for ENDOWMENTS, High Court of Andhra^Pradesh.

¶56

j0r

¶57

One CC to SRI MIAPURAM SRINIVAS RAO Advocate [OPUC]

¶58

Three CD Copies

Madhu

HIGH COURT

DATED:17/09/2024

ORDER

WP.No.24368 of 2012

\
•/3: 2 0 FEB 2025 I)
.9:^ . Currenl Section

¶65

DISMISSING THE WP FOR NON-PROSECUTION WITHOUT COSTS

Induru Rajasekhar Reddy, Nellore Dist. v. the a.P.Endowments Tribunal,Rep.by CHAIRMAN,HYD.,AND2OTRS.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Induru Rajasekhar Reddy, Nellore Dist. v. the a.P.Endowments Tribunal,Rep.by CHAIRMAN,HYD.,AND2OTRS.

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

Devagiri Pamula Reddy Vs The Executive officer, Sri Agastheswara Swamy Temple

The Depot Manager, Vs Depot Union Secretary

Baghavathula Bala Tripura Sundari Vs the State of Ap

Nallamilli Paawani, E.G. Dist. and Anr. Vs Commissioner of Endowments and Secretary, Hyd and 2 Ot

Maripalli Bhasker Satyanarayana, S/o. Raghava Kumar Vs The Commissioner, Endowments Department

P Kiran Kumar Reddy Vs The State of Andhra Pradesh