Writ petition dismissed as infructuous after counsel for the petitioner submitted that the cause did not survive. No costs; pending interlocutory applications 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.
1
APHC010054542016
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI
[3310]
(Special Original Jurisdiction)
THURSDAY ,THE FOURTEENTH DAY OF MARCH TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FOUR
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE DR JUSTICE K MANMADHA RAO
WRIT PETITION NO: 7341/2016
Between:
Godavathi Rama Subba Rao,
...PETITIONER
AND
The State Of Andhra Pradesh and Others
...RESPONDENT(S)
Counsel for the Petitioner:
Counsel for the Respondent(S):
The Court made the following:
ORDER:
Learned counsel for the petitioner, who appeared through virtual
hearing, submits that the cause in the writ petition does not survive and it has become infructuous.
2
As a sequel, interlocutory applications, if any pending, shall stands closed.
_____________________________ DR. K. MANMADHA RAO, J.
ARR
3
HON’BLE DR.JUSTICE K.MANMADHA RAO
Writ Petition No.7341 of 2016
Date: 14.03.2024
ARR
Godavathi Rama Subba Rao
The State Of Andhra Pradesh
K Manmadha Rao
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
