Petitioners challenged the appointment of a Convener for CBCNC Education Committee filed via writ. Court held cause did not survive as appointment period had already expired, dismissing the petition as infructuous.
Writ petition dismissed as infructuous; 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.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AMARAVATI
> c
(Special Original Jurisdiction) VJ
WEDNESDAY, THE TWENTY FIRST DAY OF FEBRUARY i?
TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FOUR "ii X"
"A
PRESENT
y;
f -
THE HON’BLE SMT. JUSTICE V.SUJATHA
WRIT PETITION NO: 2876 OF 2019
Between:
Chairman, B. Benzmen, S/o. O. Rajarao, aged about 47 years, Occ: Trust Association (CBCNC), R/o. Akivedu, West Godavari District. ...PETITIONERS
AND
Andhra Pradesh, Ibrahimpatnam, Vijayawada.
...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 an order, direction or writ more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus declaring the action of the respondent No.1 in appointing the respondent No^3 as Convener of the CBCNC Education committee for a periL of rive years vide proceedings in Memo No.15022/11/2018-PS SECT-School Education Department, dt.06-02-2019 as illegal, arbitrary, violative to principles No 15oS/11/2m8^PS proceedings of respondent No.1 inMemo fnrth SECT-School Education Department, dt.06- 02-2019and hfcRrMr PH® Nos.1 and 2 not to appoint anyone as Convenerof the CBCNC Education Committee, pending decision of the respondent No 4 in giving recognition to the petitioner No.1 as elected body, in the interest of justice.
lA NO: 1 OF 2019
thP pffiH? > f I CPC praying that in the circumstancesstated i ..n lusnind thP ® 'n support of the writ petition, theHighCourtmaybepleasedto suspend the operation of Memo No.15022/11/2018-PS SECT-School Education
Department, dt.06-02-2019 whereby the respondent No.1 appointed respondent No.3 as Convener of the CBCNC Education Committee, pending disposal of the mam writ petition in the interest of justice.
Counsel for the Petitioners : SRI CHETLURU SREENIVAS
Counsel for the Respondent Nos.1 & 2 : GP FOR SCHOOL EDUCATION
Counsel for the Respondent No.3 : NONE APPEARED
Counsel for the Respondent No.4 : GP FOR STAMPS & REGISTRATION
The Court made the following: ORDER
APHC010063342019
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH :: AMARAVATI
(Special Original Jurisdiction)
[3333 ]
WEDNESDAY ,THE TWENTY FIRST DAY OF FEBRUARY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FOUR
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE SMT JUSTICE V.SUJATHA
WRIT PETITION NO: 2876 OF 2019
Between:
CONVENTION OF BAPTIST AND OTHERS
...PETITIONER(S)
AND
THE STATE OF AP AND OTHERS
...RESPONDENT(S)
Counsel for the Petitioner(s):SRI. CHE fLURU SREENIVAS
Counsel for the Respondents: GP FOR SCHOOL EDUCATION (AP)
The Court made the following:
ORDER: -
This writ petition came to be filed under Article 226 of the
Constitution of India, seeking the following relief;-
“....to issue an order direction or writ more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus declaring the action of the respondent No.l in appointing the respondent No.3 as Convener of the CBCNC Education committee for a period of five years vide proceedings in Memo.No.15022/ fl/2018-PS SECT-SchoolEducation Department dt. 06.02.2019 as illegal, arbitrary, violative to principles of natural justice and set aside the proceedings of respondent No. 1 in Memo.No.15022/11/2018-PS SECT-School Education Department dt.06.02.2019 and further direct the respondent Nos. I and 2 not to appoint anyone as Convener of the CBCNC Education Committee pending decision of the respondent No. 4 in giving recognition to the petitioner No.l as elected body in the interest ofjustice and pass...”
- Heard learned Government Pleader for School Education for the respondents.
'■ U
2
- Accordingly, the Writ Petition is dismissed as infructuous. There shall be no order as to costs.
As a sequel, miscellaneous applications pending, if any, in the Writ Petition, shall also stand closed.
Sd/- M. SRINIVAS ASSISTANT REGISTRAR
//TRUE COPY//
To,
SECTION OFFICER
HIGH COURT
DATED:21/02/2024
ORDER
WP.No.2876 of 2019
Sow costI”'’-
'"FRUCTUOUS
1 issue framed by the court
Whether a writ petition challenging an appointment altered the cause of action?
2 provisions across 2 enactments
Convention of Baptist Churches of Northern Circars
State of Andhra Pradesh
V. Sujatha
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
