Dismissed

P.Liyakhat Ali Khan, v. State of Andhra Pradesh

Andhra Pradesh HC23 Apr 2024WP/28509/2016

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Andhra Pradesh at Amravati dismissed Writ Petition No. 28509 of 2016 filed by a petitioner seeking extension of parole. The Court noted the petitioner's absence and a prior lack of representation on 04.04.2024, concluding he had no interest in prosecuting the matter.

What did the court decide?

Writ petition dismissed for non-prosecution; no order as to costs.

P.Liyakhat Ali Khan, Vs State of… — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Andhra Pradesh HC (2024)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH :: AMARAVATI

¶2

(Special Original Jurisdiction)

¶3

WEDNESDAY,THE TWENTYFOURTH DAY OF APRIL TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FOUR

¶4

PRESENT

¶5

THE HONOURABLE DR JUSTICE K MANMADHA RAO

¶6

WRIT PETITION NO: 28509 OF 2016

¶7

Between: 1. P.LIy^hat AN Khan, S/o.Khader All Khan, aged about 45 years, R/o.62/67 Near Muncif Court, Chidambara Rao Street, Kurnool Town and District.

¶8

...Petitioner

¶9

AND

¶10

State of Andf^faPradesh, Rep. by its Principal Secretary (Home Department) Secretariat, Hyderabad

¶11

The Superintendent, Central Prison, Kadapa, Kadapa^District.

¶12

...Respondents

¶13

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 so, a writ in the nature of mandamus, by declaring the inaction of the 1st respondent is not considering the application of petitioner for extension of Parole is bad in law arbitrary, illegal and infringement of the fundamental rights life and liberty and to direct the 1st respondent to extend the parole period for two more months as per the application of the petitioner dated.19.08.2016 and may pass such other order or orders as this Hon’ble Court may be pleased to deem fit and proper in the interests of justice and equity.

¶14

I.A. NO: 1 OF 2016(WPMP. NO: 35299 OF 20161

¶15

Pehtion 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 direct the 1st respondent to extend the parole period of the petitioner as per his application dated.19.08.2016 during pendency of the above writ petition and may pass

¶16

Counsel for the Petitioner :SRI. G VASANTHA RAYUDU

¶17

Counsel for the Respondents: GP FOR HOME

¶18

The Court made the following:

APHC010076122016

IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI

¶23

[3310]

¶24

(Special Original Jurisdiction)

¶25

¶26

WEDNESDAY ,THE TWENTY FOURTH DAY OF APRIL TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FOUR

¶27

PRESENT

¶28

THE HONOURABLE DR JUSTICE K MANMADHA RAO

¶29

WRIT PETITION NO: 285Q9/2Q1fi

Between:

P.liyakhat Ali Khan

...PETITIONER

AND

State Of Andhra Pradesh and Others ...RESPONDENT(S)

¶35

Counsel for the Petitioner:

¶36

1.G VASANTHA RAYUDU

¶37

Counsel for the Respondent(S):

¶38

1.GP FOR HOME (AP)

¶39

The Court made the following Order:

¶40

None appeared for the petitioner. On an earlier occasion also i.e., on 04.04.2024, there was no representation on behalf of the petitioner. So, it appears that the petitioner not evincing any interest to prosecute the writ petition.

¶41

Accordingly, the Writ Petition is dismissed for non-prosecution, No order as to costs.

¶42

¶43

¶44

pending, shall stands As a sequel, interlocutory applications, if any Crt/- A VIJAYA BABU AsIlSTAN-npEGISTRAR SBCIJOI^^F'CER

¶45

closed.

¶46

To, ..>r^ne CC to SRI. G Vasantha Rayudu Advocate [OPUC] High Court Of Andhra Pradesh. [OUT] 2^Iwo CCs to GP For Home , Three CD Copies RJV

HIGH COURT

RJV

DATE 0:24/04/2024

ORDER

^rAND^
m
0 3 [3tC 202^
69
T- ->*
P% Current Seciion

¶53

WP.No.28509 of 2016

¶54

DISMISSING THE WP FOR NON PROSECUTION WITHOUT COSTS

P.Liyakhat Ali Khan, v. State of Andhra Pradesh

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

P.Liyakhat Ali Khan, v. State of Andhra Pradesh

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Katakam Satyanarayana, Vs The Govt. of A.P.

Palla Parvathi Vs The State of Andhra Pradesh

Circar Jute Mills (P) Ltd., Vs The State of Andhra Pradesh

R. Narayana Swamy, Vs The Director General of Police

Parvathini Narsimha Rao, E.G.Dist., and 2 Otrs. Vs State of a.P.,Home,Hyd.,and 2 Otrs.

Smt.Kottaraju Annapurna, Vs The State of Andhra Pradesh