Dismissed

K Veeralankaiah v. the State of Ap

Andhra Pradesh HC1 Jul 2024WP/3122/2019

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This order is a request for dismissal of Writ Petition No. 3122 of 2019. Counsel argued the cause was infructuous because the case does not survive any prior order prohibiting the court from hearing it. The court dismissed the petition as infructuous without costs and closed pending interlocutory applications.

What did the court decide?

Writ Petition dismissed as infructuous. No order as to costs. Pending interlocutory applications closed.

K Veeralankaiah Vs the State of… — Constitutional and Fundamental Rights | Andhra Pradesh HC (2024)

¶1

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH :: AMARAVATI

¶3

(Special Original Jurisdiction)

¶4

TUESDAY, THE SECOND DAY OF JULY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FOUR

¶5

PRESENT

¶6

THE HON’BLE DR JUSTICE K MANMADHA RAO

¶7

WRIT PETITION NO: 3122 OF 2019

¶8

Between:

¶9

Kokkiligadda Veeralankaiah, S/o K. Ramaiah (late), aged 38 years, Occ Secretary, Taekwondo Association of Krishna District.^{R/oD.No.28/513-A,} Circle Peta, Machilipatnam 521 001. Krishna District.

¶10

...PETITIONER

¶11

AND

¶12

The Principal Secretary, Sports, Cultural and Youth Affairs Department, A.P. Secretariat, Velagapudi, Amaravathi, Guntur District

¶13

Sports Authority of Andhra Pradesh(SAAP), Rep.by its Vice Chairman Managing Director IGMC Stadium, Vijayawada, Krishna District, Andhra Pradesh.

¶14

The President, A.P. Olympic Association, 19-592/1, Masonic Co operative Housing Colony, Near Yogananda Ashram, Mittor, Chittor District, Andhra Padesh.

¶15

The Secretary, Taekwondo Federation of India, C-70,^{SouthExtension,} Part-ll, New Delhi-110049.

¶16

¶17

The Andhra Pradesh State, Taekwondo Association Affiliated to Taekwondo Federation of India, Sports Authority of^Andhra Pradesh and Andhra Pradesh Olympic Association, 7-10-43/3, Aiswarya Awas, Old Gajuwaka, Visakhapatnam.

¶18

The President, New Andhra Pradesh State, Taekwondo Association, D.No.10-38-2123, Parvathi Enclave, Ram Nagar, Visakhapatnam.

¶19

...RESPONDENTS

¶20

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 a direction, more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus, declare that the expulsion order dated 19.11.2018 issued by 6'^ respondent and interfering with petitioner Association as illegal, highhanded, unconstitutional, deliberate, unwarranted, unsustainable, arbitrary against Law as well as principles of natural justice and consequently set aside the same^{anddirecttheofficial} respondents to take necessary action against 6'^ respondent.

¶21

lA NO: 1 OF 2021

¶22

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 extend the interim order which was granted^on11-03-2019 in W.P.No. 3122 of 2019 until further orders.

¶23

lA NO: 1 OF 2019

¶24

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 stay of all proceedings of expulsion order^dated 19.11.2018 issued by the respondent.

¶25

Counsel for the Petitioner: SRI K B RAMANNA DORA

¶26

Counsel for the Respondent No. 1 : GP FOR SPORTS AUTHORITY

¶27

Counsel for the Respondent No. 2 : M V S PRASAD (SC^FORSAAP)

¶28

The Court made the following: ORDER

¶29

APHC010069222019

¶30

¶31

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

¶32

[3310]

¶33

TUESDAY, THE SECOND DAY OF JULY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FOUR PRESENT THE HONOURABLE DR JUSTICE K MANMADHA RAO WRIT PETITION NO: 3122/2019

¶34

Between; Kokkilligadda Veeralankaiah

¶35

The State Of AP and Others Counsel for the Petitioner: 1.K B RAMANNA DORA

¶36

...PETITIONER

¶37

AND ...RESPONDENT(S)

¶38

Counsel for the Respondent(S): 1.M VS PRASAD

¶39

2 GP FOR SPORTS(AP)

¶40

The Court made the following order;

¶41

Mr.V.Sai Kiran, learned counsel representing Mr.K.B.Ramanna Dora, learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the cause in the writ petition does not survive and it further orders are required has become infructuous, as such, no in this matter.

¶42

Recording the said submission, the Writ Petition is dismissed as infructuous. There shall be no order as to costs. As a sequel, interlocutory applications, if any pending, shall stands closed.

¶43

Sd/- B. PRASADA RAO ASSISTANT REGISTRAR //TRUE COPY// ' SECTION OFFICER

¶44

¶45

One CC to SRI K B RAMANNA DORA, Advocate [OPUC]

¶46

Two CCs to GP FOR SPORTS AUTHORITY, Advocate [OPUC]

¶47

One CC to SRI M V S PRASAD (SC FOR SAAP), Advocate [OPUC]

¶48

Three CD Copies.

HIGH COURT

DATED:02/07/2024

ORDER

WP.No.3122 of 2019

DISMISSING THE WP AS INFRUCTUOUS

¶54

WITHOUT COSTS

K Veeralankaiah v. the State of Ap

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

K Veeralankaiah v. the State of Ap

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

Sri Sai Sands, Rep. by its Managing Partner Vs State of Andhra Pradesh

Poosarla Ramana, Visakhapatnam Dist.,a.P. Vs the State of a.P.,Mines,Amaravathi,a.P.,and 2 Otrs.

M/s. Vision Stone Crusher, Rep.by its.Proprietor. Vs The Director of Mines and Geology

Ch v Rao Vs the State of Ap

Kokkiligadda Jagan Mohan Rao, Vs the State of Ap and 5 Others

Alapthi Sathyanarayana Vs The Commissioner