A school challenged the return of its application for a No Objection Certificate for Occupancy. At hearing, counsel submitted the cause did not survive and the petition had become infructuous; the court dismissed it as infructuous with 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
(Special Original Jurisdiction)
TUESDAY, THE TWELFTH DAY OF MARCH
TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FOUR
PRESENT
THE HON’BLE DR JUSTICE K MANMADHA RAO WRIT PETITION NO: 37532 OF 2015
Between:
M/s. Malatamba Vidyaniketan by its Secretary cum Correspondent Suneel Mahanty, S/o Sivaprasad Mahanty Aged 38 years. R/o D.No. 10184/1, Plot No. 98, P M Palem (V) APHB Colony, Visakhapatnam. ...PETITIONER
AND
...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 pass an order or direction or writ more particular in the nature of writ of mandamus, declaring the action of the first respondent in returning the application for No Objection Certificate for Occupancy vide proceedings Rc No. 4432/MSB/ER/VSP/2014. dated 30.07.2015 in spite of fulfilling the required conditions as per GO Ms. No. 154, dated 13.03.2007, as arbitrary, illegal, highhandedness and against the principles of natural justice, and consequently direct the first respondent to issue No Objection Certificate for Occupancy, on Dr No. 10-184/1. plot No. 98, 107 & 108 in Survey No. 40 & 48/4, of P.M.Palem (V), APHB Colony Division No. 04 of Viskhapatnam, in the interest of justice.
I.A. NO: 1 OF 2015(WPMP. NO: 48279 OF 2015)
Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in thecircumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the writ petition, the High Court may, be pleased to direct the first respondent to issue No Objection .Certificate for Occupancy, on Dr No. 10-184/1, plot No. 98, 107 & 108 in .. Survey No. 40 & 48/4, of P.M.Palem (V), APHB Colony,DivisionNo.04of ■; Viskhapatnam, pending disposal of the main writ petition, in the interest of justice.
Counsel for the PetitionenSRI. P. RAMA SHARANA SHARMA
Counsel for the Respondents No.1,2,3,4: GP FOR HOME
The Court made the following: ORDER
[3310]
s
APHC010032602015
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction)
f
TUESDAY ,THE TWELFTH DAY OF MARCH TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FOUR
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE DR JUSTICE K MANMADHA RAO
WRIT PETITION NO: 37532/2015
Between:
Secretary, M/s. Malatamba Vidyaniketan, Visakhapatnam ...PETITIONER AND
PrI Secretary Home Dept Hyd 3 Others and Others
...RESPONDENT(S)
Counsel for the Petitioner:
Counsel for the Respondent(S):
1.GP FOR HOME (AP)
The Court made the following Order:
Mr.P.Rama Sharana Sharma, learned counsel for the petitioner appeared virtually and submitted that the cause inthepresentWrit Petition does not survive, and it has become infructuous.
- Learned Assistant Government Pleader for Home appearingfor the official respondents is present.
- Recording the above submission, the Writ Petition isdismissed as Infructuous.
There shall be no order as to costs.
'As a sequel, miscellaneous applications pending, if any, shall
stand closed.
Sd/- SHAIK MOHD. RAFI ASSISTANT REGISTRAR
//TRUE COPY//
SECTION OFFICER
To,
nm
HIGH COURT DATED:12/03/2024
ORDER
WP.No.37532 of 2015
/o
0 8 JUL 202^ m
m G3
'iVSt-
%.s'5fr Gurrent Seoxiori
DISMISSING THE WP AS INFRUCTUOUS WITHOUT COSTS
M/s. Malatamba Vidyaniketan by its Secretary cum Correspondent Suneel Mahanty
The State of Andhra Pradesh, Represented by its Principal Secretary (Home)
Director General of Fire Services, Secretariat, Hyderabad
The Regional Fire Officer, Eastern Region, Vijayawada
The District Fire Officer, Visakhapatnam
K Manmadha Rao
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
