Petitioner challenging an oral direction to remove a fruit shop filed a writ petition. Counsel submitted the petition had become infructuous. The court dismissed the writ petition as being infructuous.
Writ petition dismissed as infructuous.
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 AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction)
THURSDAY, THE ELEVENTH DAY OF JULY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FOUR
PRESENT
THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE VENKATESWARLU NIMMAGADDA '
WRIT PETITION NO: 39301 OF 2013
Between:
Uppu Siddhu, S/o. Shyam, aged 30 years, Occ; Fruit Vendor R/o. Gantapalem, Ongole, Prakasam District. ...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 Issue a writ, order or direction more particularly one in the nature of writ of Mandamus to declare the action of the respondents in orally directing the petitioner to remove the fruit shop of the petitioner without following due process of law even though the said premises does not belong to APSRTC as arbitrary, illegal and consequently direct the
t
respondent not to interfere with the fruit businessofthepetitionerwithout ,^«ifollowing due process of law in the interest ofjustice. A.
l>. NO: 1 OF 2013(WPMP. NO: 48815 OF 2013)
^ • 44 4 Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in thecircumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition,theHighCourtmaybe pleased direct the respondent not to interfere withthefruitbusinessofthe petitioner without following due process of law pendingdisposalofthewrit petition in the interest of justice.
Counsel for the Petitioner: SRI P NAGENDRA REDDY
Counsel for the Respondent: DANDA RADHIKA (SC FOR APSRTC)
The Court made the following: ORDER
<br>
APHC010101862013
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI [3329]
(Special Original Jurisdiction)
THURSDAY, THE ELEVENTH DAY OF JULY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FOUR
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE VENKATESWARLU NIMMAGADDA
WRIT PETITION NO: 39301/2013
Between:
Uppu Siddhu,
...PETITIONER
AND
The Andhra Pradesh State Road Transport Corporation ...RESPONDENT(S) and Others
The Court made the following Order:
Sri P. Nagendra Reddy, learned counsel for the petitioner, submitted that the Writ Petition has become infructuous.
Recording the said submission, the Writ Petition is dismissed V
.as infructuous. There shall be no order as to costs.
Consequently, miscellaneous petitions, if any, shallstandclosed.
Sd/- V.DIWAKAR DEPUTY REGISTRAR
//TRUE COPY//
SECTION OFFICER
To,
PRK
• ^
HIGH COURT
^
DATED: 11/07/2024
ORDER
WP.No.39301 of 2013
%
I
f 16 JAN 2025 n
^ . Current Section
DISMISSING THE WP AS INFRUCTUOUS
Uppu Siddhu
Andhra Pradesh State Road Transport Corporation
Venkateswarlu Nimmagadda
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
