The High Court dismissed a writ petition filed by residents challenging the existence of unauthorized wine shops in a residential area as infructuous due to the efflux of time, without awarding costs.
Writ Petition dismissed; all pending miscellaneous petitions closed.
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)
FRIDAY, THE TWENTY FIRST DAY OF JUNE TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FOUR
PRESENT
J.
THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE SUBBA REDDY SATTI
WRIT PETITION NO: 40889 OF 2014
Between:
...PETITIONERS
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 an appropriate writ, order or direction more particularly
one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus declaring the action of the respondents No.1 to 4 in not taking any action to remove the wine shops of the respondents No.5 & 6, which are established in the midst of the residential houses at Karurumitta, Bheemulavaripalem Village, Tada Mandal, SPSR Nellore District, is as illegal, arbitrary, unjust and against the Principles of Natural Justice, consequently direct the respondents No.1 - to 3 to remove the said shops from the village forthwith. I.A. NO: 1 OF 2014(WPMP. NO: 51232 OF 2014) 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 respondents No.1 to 3toremovethewine shops of the respondents No.4 & 5 from the Karurumitta, Bheemulavaripalem Village, Tada Mandal, SPSR Nellore District, forthwith.
Counsel for the Petitioners : SRI G. JAGADEESWAR
Counsel for the Respondent Nos.1 to 4 : GP FOR PROHIBITION & EXCISE
Counsel for the Respondent Nos.5 & 6 : NONE APPEARED
The Court made the following: ORDER
APHC010111662014
<r «'
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI
(Special Original Jurisdiction)
[3331]
FRIDAY, THE TWENTY FIRST DAY OF JUNE TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FOUR
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE SUBBA REDDY SATTI WRIT PETITION NO: 40889/2014
Between:
V. Muthu, S/o. Vella Reddy, Aged about 50 years, Occ; Agricutiure, R/o. Bheemulavaripalem Village, Karuru (PO) Tada Mandal, SPSR Nellore District and another.
...PETITIONER(S)
AND
The State of A.P, Rep. by the District Collector, Nellore, ...RESPONDENT(S) SPSR Nellore District and five others.
Counsel for the Petitioner(S):
1.G JAGADEESWAR
Counsel for the Respondent(S):
1.GP FOR PROHIBITION & EXCISE (AP)
The Court made the following order:
Learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that by efflux of time, the cause in the writ petition does not survive and hence, the same is now rendered infructuous.
- Recording the above submission, the Writ Petition is dismissed as infructuous. No order as to costs.
As a seauel. all the oendino miscellaneous oetitions shall stand closed.
To,
//TRUE COPY//
SD/- V. SAVITHRI GOWRI ASSISTANT] REGISTRAR
SECTION OFFICER
Cnr
HIGH COURT
DATED:21/06/2024
ORDER
WP.No.40889 Of 2014
ANDH^
Cx
X 2 SEP ?0?‘» to.ml,
^ . Current Section
DISMISSING THE W.P. AS INFRUCUTOUS WITHOUT COSTS
1 issue framed by the court
Whether the writ petition survives after the efflux of time.
V. Muthu
A. T. Murthy
State of A.P.
Subba Reddy Satti
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
