Writ petition challenging a government order appointing a Special Public Prosecutor under Section 24(8) Cr.P.C. Counsel submitted no further orders were required, and the Court found nothing survived for adjudication and closed the writ petition with no 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.
a. A-
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH :: AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction)
TUESDAY, THE SIXTEENTH DAY OF APRIL TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FOUR
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE DR JUSTICE K.WIANMADHA
WRIT PETITION NO: 32783 OF 2016 x
Between:
...Petitioners
AND
Pradesh, Hyderabad.
...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 a Writ, order or direction more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus, declaring the illegal action of the 1st
•I
respondent in appointing the respondent as Special Public Prosecutor by G.O.Rt.No.557, dated 08-08-2016, basing on the request of the 3rd respondent duly mentioning the 4th respondent name and same was forwarded by the 2nd respondent under Section 24(8) Cr.P.C., though the S.C.No:4.01/2014, was transferred to the V Additional District & Sessions Court, Nandyal. Kurnool District, without consulting the District Judge, Kurnool District, as illegal, arbitrary, unjust, contrary to the Section 24(8) of Cr.P.C., in gross violation of the principles of natural justice and Articles 14 & 21 of the Constitution of India and after calling records from the 1st respondent relating to G.O.Rt.No.557, dated 08-08-2016, and after perusing the same, set aside the G.O.Rt.No.557, dated 08-08-2016, issued by the 1st respondent, as otherwise Petitioners will suffer serious loss and great hardship.
L-A. NO: 1 OF 2016fWPMP. NO: 40565 OF 201R)
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 grant interim suspension of G.O.Rt. No. 557, dated 08-08-2016, issued by the 1"^ respondent, pending disposal of the Writ Petition.
j.A. NO: 2 OF 2016fWPMP. NO: 43004 OF 2016)
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 grant permission to file additional documents in W.P.No.32783 of 2016, pending disposal of the Writ Petition.
Counsel for the Petitioner: SRI CHALLA SiyASANKAR Counsel for the Respondents: GP FOR HOME Counsel for the Respondents: SRI N SRIRAM MURTHY
The Court made the following order:
APHC010032392016
X
f
41
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI
[3310]
(Special Original Jurisdiction)
TUESDAY ,THE SIXTEENTH DAY OF APRIL TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FOUR PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE DR JUSTICE K MANMADHA RAO WRIT PETITION NO: 32783/2016
Between:
Chennareddigari Janardhan Reddy, and Others
...PETITIONER{S)
AND
The State Of Andhra Pradesh and Others ...RESPONDENT(S) Counsel for the Petitioner(S):
2.1776/N SRIRAM MURTHY
3.15516/GP FOR HOME (AP) The Court made the following:
This Writ Petition is filed, under Article 226 of the
Constitution of India, seeking the following relief:
to issue a Writ order or direction more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus declaring the illegal action of the 1st respondent in appointing the 4th respondent as Special Public Prosecutor by G O Rt No 557 dated08082016 basing on the request of the 3rd respondent duly mentioning the 4th respondent name and same was forwarded by the2nd respondent under Section 248 Cr P C though the S CNo 401/2014 was transferred to the V Additional District Sessions Court Nandyal Kurnool District without consulting theDistrict Judge Kurnool District as illegal arbitrary unjust contrary to the Section 248 of Cr P C in gross violation of the principlesof natural justice and Articles 14 21 of the Constitution of India and after calling records from the 1st respondent relatingtoG O Rt No 557 dated 08082016 and after perusing the sameset aside the G O Rt No 557 dated 08082016 issued by the 1st respondent as otherwise Petitioners will suffer serious loss and great hardship and pass such other order or orders as this Honble Court may deem fit and proper in the circumstancesof the case....”
2
adjudication.
- Accordingly, the Writ Petition is Closed. There shall be no order as to costs.
As a sequel, miscellaneous applications pending, ifany,
shall stand closed.
//TRUE COPY//
Sd/- S.SRINIVASA PRASAD ASSISTANT REGISTRAR
To,
SECTION OFFICER
RAM
HIGH COURT
DATED:16/04/2024
ORDER
WP.No.32783of2016
CLOSING THE WP WITHOUT COSTS
1 issue framed by the court
Whether the appointment of the 4th respondent as Special Public Prosecutor by G.O.Rt.No.557 dated 08.08.2016 without consulting the District Judge was illegal under Section 24(8) Cr.P.C.
1 provisions across 1 enactments
Chennareddigari Janardhan Reddy
Chennareddigari Sanjeeva Kumar Reddy
Chennareddigari Ashok Kumar Reddy
Chennareddigari Madan Mohan Reddy
State of Andhra Pradesh
Inja Jayalakshmi
K Manmadha Rao
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
