In this Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner sought to quash proceedings for being an abuse of process. The Court found the cause did not survive and the petition became infructuous, leading to its dismissal.
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.
11 ‘-Y
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANQHRA PRADESH::AMARAVATI (Special Original Juri^diption)
MONDAY, THE TWENTY SIXTH PAY OF FEBRUARY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FOUR
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE DR JUSTICE K MANMADHA RAO
WRIT PETITION NO: 33437 OF 2015
Between:
District. Tamilnadu State
...RESPONDENTS
Petition under Article 226 of the Conetitution of India praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed therewith, the High Court may appropriate Writ, Order or Direction more particularly m the nature of Writ of Mandamus declaring the proceedings in J'Jdicial First Claes ip»,^ '^^^t Godavari District are abuse of processof law and lack of jurisdiction and contrary to the provisions of Act 43 of 2005 and consequently quash the same.
••••
P. W:*
f
ih I: w- % S: I- £ E r- f;
IV'i ii s*-
LA. NO: 1 OF 2015rWPMP Mn43122 OF 201 fi) ■sSsIsspHs =;=S'.-r.iSHS£: e
Counsel for the Petitioner: SRI. SAI GANGADHAR CHAMARTY
Counsel for the Respondent No.1: GP FOR HOME (AP)
Counsel for the Respondent No.2:
The Court made the following:
Rjfr 'i' 4 ■l
I 7
APHC010046092015
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [ 331Q MONDAY ,THE TWENTY SIXTH DAY OF FEBRUARY ] TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FOUR
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE DR JUSTICE K MANMADHA RAO
WRIT PETITION NO: 33437 OF 2015
1 '1 '
Between:
ADDAGARLA DHARANI SARAN AND OTHERS ...PETITIONER(S)
AND / THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH AND OTHERS ...RESPONDENT(S) '
Counsel for the Petitioner(s):$RI. SAI GANGADHAR CHAMARTY Counsel for the Respondents: GP FOR HOME (AP)
The Court mede the following:
ORDER;-
Sri K.V.M. Chiranjeevi, learned Counsel, representing Sri Sai Gangaclhar Chamarthy, learned counsel for the petitioners, submitsthat the cause in the present Writ Petition does not survive, and it has becpme infructuous.
- Learned Assistant Government Pleader for Home appearingforthe official respondent is present.
r
2
- Recording the above submission, the Writ Petition is dismissed as Infructuous.
There shall be no order as to costs.
As a sequel, miscellaneous applications pending, if any, shall stand
closed.
Sd/- M. SRINIVAS ASSISTANT REGISTRAR
//TRUE COPY//
SECTION OFFICER
To,
HIGH COURT
DATED:26/02/2024
ORDER
WP.No.33437 of 2015
22aj
%
£>
ffif
00,.
O ^r'
ac
a»S>.
'9-
ji ^ It-.
DISMISSING THE W.P
AS INFRUCTUOUS
WITHOUT COSTS
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the Writ Petition challenging proceedings in Judicial First Classes stands infructuous due to non-survival of the cause.
Whether the Petitioner is entitled to relief on the claim that the proceedings are abuse of process of law.
Acldagarla Dharani Saran
The State of Andhra Pradesh
Dr Justice K Manmadha Rao
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
