Writ petition challenging a notice under the AP Saw Mills (Regulation) Rules 1969 was dismissed as infructuous at the petitioner's own request, the cause no longer surviving; no order as to costs and miscellaneous petitions closed. Decides nothing of general application.
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.
''i
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH :: AMARAVATI
(Special Original Jurisdiction)
WEDNESDAY.THE SEVENTH DAY OF FEBRUARY
TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FOUR
PRESENT
'K
n::
THE HONOURABLE SMT JUSTICE V.SUJATHA
WRIT PETITION NO: 435 OF 2014
Between;
Parsotam Patel, S/o late Vatsaram Patel, Hindu, aged 56 years, Sri Venkateswara. Timber Depot, # 58-1-236. NAD Kotha Road. 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 issue an order, direction or writ more particularly one in the nature of a Writ of Mandamus, declaring the notice of the second
respondent in Rc. No. 2378/1994L, dated 12th Dec 2013 as arbitrary, illegal, without jurisdiction and out side the purview of the second respondent's power under the AP Saw Mills (Regulation) Rules 1969, apart from being motivated by a thrid party and an abuse of the official power vested in the second respondent and violative of the rights guaranteed to me under Art. 300-A of the Constitution of India and consequently direct the second respondent to withdraw the impugned notice and not to interfere with the business of the petitioner
I.A. NO:
1 OF 2014 fWPMP. NO: 491 OF 20141
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 direct the second respondent to process and renew the license for the year 2014
l A. NO: 2 OF 2014 rWPMP, NO: 492 OF 20141
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 stay all further proceedings contemplated by the second respondent under the impugned notice dated 12.12.2013 in Rc. No. 2378/1994-L.
Counsel for the Petitioner : SRI. P.KAMALAKAR
Counsel for the Respondent Nos. 1 &2: GP FOR FORESTS
Counsel for the Respondent No.3: M/s C. SINDHU KUMARI
The Court made the following: ORDER
r
/
THE HON’BLE SMT JUSTICE V. SUJATHA
Writ Petition No.435 of 2014
ORDER:
Sri. M.S.P. Reddy, learned counsel representing Sri. P. Kamalakar, learned counsel for the petitioner, informed this Court that the cause in the Writ Petition does not survive and the matter has become infructuous. Hence, prayed to dismiss the Writ Petition.
Accoijdingly, ^his Writ Petition is dismissed as infructuous.
There shall be no order as to costs.
As a sequel, miscellaneous petitions pending, if anyinthe Writ Petition, shall stand closed.
Sd/- B. PRASADA RAO ASSISTANT REGISTRAR
//TRUE COPY//
SECTON OFFICER
To,
YJ
HIGH COURT
DATED:07/02/2024
ORDER
WP.No.435 of 2014
o
^Yc,
/i 2 3 JUL joaii
ss:
cr&
DISMISSING THE WRIT PETITION AS INFURCTUOUS WITHOUT COSTS
2 provisions across 2 enactments
Parsotam Patel
The State of A.P, Rep by Principal Secretary, Forest Department
The Divisional Forest Officer, Visakhapatnam
Smt. Vankayala Sarala
V. Sujatha
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
