Dismissed

Tummala Venkata Ramakrishna, E.G. Dist v. Prl Secy, Forest Dept., Hyd and 3 Ot

Andhra Pradesh HC25 Mar 2024WP/29883/2016

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This judgment dismisses a Writ Petition and an interim application as infructuous. The Court accepted the petitioner's counsel's submission that the cause did not survive, referencing the proceedings related to forest permissions and girth measurement conditions.

What did the court decide?

The Writ Petition and interim application were dismissed as infructuous without any order as to costs.

Tummala Venkata Ramakrishna, E.G… — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Andhra Pradesh HC (2024)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH :: AMARAVATI

¶2

(Special Original Jurisdiction)

¶3

TUESDAY, THE TWENTY SIXTH DAY OF MARCH TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FOUR

¶4

PRESENT

¶5

THE HONOURABLE SMT JUSTICE V.SUJATHA

¶6

WRIT PETITION NO: 29883 OF 2016

¶7

Between:

¶8

Tummala Venkata Ramakrishna, S/o Apparao, aged about^46years R/o Gokavaram, East Godavari District.

¶9

...PETITIONER .

¶10

AND

¶11

The State of Andhra Pradesh, rep by its Principal^Secretary,

¶12

Department of Forest, A.P. Secretariat Buildings, Hyderabad.

¶13

2, The Principal Chief Conservator of Forests, Andhra^{Pradesh,Aranya} Bhavan, Hyderabad.

¶14

The Divisional Forest Officer, Kakinada Division,^{Kakinada,East} Godavari District.

¶15

The Forest Range Officer, Kakinada, East Godavari^District.

¶16

...RESPONDENTS

¶17

Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India^{prayingthatin} the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed therewith,^{theHighCourtmay} be pleased to issue a Writ Order or direction more^{particularlyoneinthe} nature of Writ of Mandamus by declaring the Proceedings in

¶18

/■

¶19

Rc.No.488/2016-P2, dt. 13-06-2016 issued by the 3rd respondent in so far as imposing a condition that to "Prepare under bark girth measurements lists..." while granting permission, as arbitrary, illegal, unconstitutional and violation of Principles of Natural Justice and to consequently^setasidethe same.

¶20

I.A. NO: 1 OF 2016(WPMP. NO: 36982 OF 2016)

¶21

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 suspend the operation of the Proceedings in Rc.No.488/2016-P2, dt.13-06-2016 issued by the 3rd respondent in so far as imposing a condition that to "Prepare under bark girth measurements lists..." while granting permission, pending disposal of the writ petition.

¶22

Counsel for the Petitioner(s): Mr, HARSHA S. AMMINENI Representing

¶23

FORSRI. AS C BOSE

¶24

Counsel for the Respondents 1 to 4 : GP FOR FORESTS

¶25

The Court made the following: ORDER

¶26

¶27

APHCO10860932016

¶28

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

¶29

[3333]

¶30

TUESDAY ,THE TWENTY SIXTH DAY OF MARCH TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FOUR

¶31

PRESENT

¶32

THE HONOURABLE SMT JUSTICE V.SUJATHA

¶33

WRIT PETITION NO; 29883/2016

¶34

Between:

¶35

Tummala Venkata Ramakrishna, E.g. Dist ...PETITIONER

¶36

AND

¶37

Prl Secy Forest Dept Hyd 3 Ot and Others

¶38

...RESPONDENT(S)

¶39

Counsel for the Petitioner:

¶40

l.A S C BOSE

¶41

Counsel for the Respondent(S):

¶42

l.GP FOR FORESTS (AP)

¶43

The Court made the following:

¶44

✓

¶45

HONOURABLE SMT. JUSTICE V.SUJATHA

¶46

WRIT PETITION No.29883 of

¶47

ORDER

¶48

Mr. Harsha S.Ammineni learned counsel representing Mr.A.S.C.Bose, learned counsel for the petitioner stated that the cause m the writ petition does not survive and the matter has become infructuous.

¶49

Recording the above submission, the Writ Petition is dismissed as infructuous. There shall be no order as to costs.

¶50

Miscellaneous petitions pending, if any, in th.s Writ PeUtion shall Stand closed.

¶51

SD/- V. SAVITHRI GOWRI e ASSISTANT REGISTRAR

//TRUE COPY//

SECTION OFFICER

To,

One CC to SRI A S C BOSE Advocate [OPUC]

¶56

TwoCCsto OP for FORESTS, High Court of Andhra Pradesh • [OUT]

¶57

Three CD Copies

Madhu

HIGH COURT

DATED:26/03/2024

ORDER

WP.No.29883 of 2016

andS^
£P
l(g 18 DEC 202’i m
Co
^ Current cieciion . ^

¶64

DISMISSING THE WP AS INFRUCTUOUS WITHOUT COSTS

Tummala Venkata Ramakrishna, E.G. Dist v. Prl Secy, Forest Dept., Hyd and 3 Ot

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Tummala Venkata Ramakrishna, E.G. Dist v. Prl Secy, Forest Dept., Hyd and 3 Ot

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

M/s.Rekha Aari Plas Limited, Vs The State of Andhra Pradesh

Raos College of Pharmacy Vs the Union of India

Siddhartha Institute of Pharmaceutical Sciences Vs The Union of India

Pragathi Vs the State of Ap

Sri Panchamukha Eicher Tractors Vs The State of Andhra Pradesh

Donipati Rojasri Vs The Principal and Convener (Brs)