The High Court dismissed a writ petition alleging illegal proximity of a school to a rice mill as infructuous after the school was shifted to another location.
No order as to costs; the writ petition was 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.
r
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH :: AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction)
TUESDAY, THE SECOND DAY OF JANUARY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FOUR
PRESENT
-
THE HONOURABLE SMT JUSTICE V.SUJATHAlt-f^®?"
WRIT PETITION NO: 8335 OF 2016
Between
M/s Sivapriya Modern Rice Mill, Bhubammanagar, Ward, Balaga, Srikakulam, represented by its Proprietor Reddi Rama Murthy.
...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 a direction, more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus declaring the inaction of the respondents 1 to 4 in permitting the respondent No.5 to run the school at Bhubammanagar, 1®* Ward, Balaga, Srikakulam town in close proximity to the petitioner rice mill affecting the health of the students as illegal, arbitrary and unjust.
I.A. NO: 1 OF 2016fWPMP. NO: 10567 OF 20161
Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in thecircumstancesstated in the affidavit filed in support of the writ Petition, the High Court may be pleased to direct the respondent 3 and 4 to submit the report pursuant to the proceeding RC.No.546/PS-l/2015, dated 4.11.2015 of the 2^^° Respondent, pending disposal of the above writ Petition.
Counsel for the Petitioner: SRI VINOD KUMAR TARLADA
Counsel for the Respondent Nos.1 to 4: GP FOR SCHOOL EDUCATION Counsel for the Respondent No.5: SRI K. R. SRINIVAS
The Court made the following: ORDER
HONOURABLE SMT. JUSTICE V.SUJATHA
WRIT PETITION No «335 of 2mfi
ORDER:
V' I 4 ’When the matter is taken up today, Mr.Tarlada Vinod Kumar, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner(s) submitted that after filing the Writ Petition, the subject school was already shifted to another place. as such the cause in the Writ Petition does not survive and the matter has become infructuous.
- Recording the said submission. this Writ Petition is dismissed as infructuous. There shall be no order as to costs. Miscellaneous petitions pending, if any, in this Writ Petition shall stand closed.
I
//TRUE COPY//
Sd/- M. SRINIVAS ASSISTANT REGISTRAR Me secti6n officer
To,
Ssb
gl
■ s
HIGH COURT
DATED; 02/01/2024
ORDER
WP.No.8335 of 2016
DISMISSING THE W.P AS INFRUCTUOUS WITHOUT COSTS
2 provisions across 2 enactments
M/s Sivapriya Modern Rice Mill
State of Andhra Pradesh
The Commissioner of School Education
The Regional Joint Director, Kakinada
The District Educational Officer, Srikakulam
Aditya Vidya Nilayam
V. SUJATHA
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
