The Writ Petition filed in November 2011 praying for a writ of mandamus was dismissed for default in the High Court of Andhra Pradesh on ground of no representation by the petitioner in March 2024.
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.
4
?
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI
(Special Original Jurisdiction)
FRIDAY, THE TWENTY SECOND DAY OF MARCH TWO THOUSANDAND TWENTYFOUR
PRESENT
'
THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE B KRISHNA MOHAN
WRIT PETITION NO: 8822 OF 2011
Between:
I.V. Ramanamurthy, S/o. Rama Rao, aged about 64 years, R/o. 13/47, Near Venugopalaswamy Temple, Bobbili, VizianagaramDistrict
...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 writ, order or direction particularlyone in the nature of writ of Mandamus declaring the action of the respondents in issuing the impugned proceedings dated 12.03.2011 and trying to dispossess the petitioner forcibly without following due process of law as arbitrary, illegal, without jurisdiction and in violation of well settled principles of natural justice
1
% I.A. NO: 1 OF 2011(WPMP. NO: 10959 OF 2011)
Counsel for the Petitioner: Sri. Rama Rao Ghanta
Counsel for the Respondent No.1: GP for Endowments
Counsel for the Respondent No.2: None Appeared
Counsel for the Respondent No.3: Sri. TVS Kumar
The Court made the following:
[3233]
f (
APHC010091852011
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction)
FRIDAY ,THE TWENTY SECOND DAY OF MARCH TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FOUR
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE B KRISHNA MOHAN
WRIT PETITION NO: 8822/2011
Between:
l.v. Ramanamurthy, Vizianagara Dfet. ...PETITIONER
AND
The Commissioner Endowments Dept Hyd 2 Othrs and ...RESPONDENT(S) Others
Counsel for the Petitioner:
1.RAMA RAOGHANTA
Counsel for the Respondent(S):
1.GP FOR ENDOWMENTS
2.0
3.T VS KUMAR
The Court made the following Order:
No representation for the petitioner, in spite of posting the
matter under the caption “for dismissal”.
- On earlier occasion also i.e., on 22.02.2024, there was no
representation for the petitioner.
2
- Accordingly, the Writ Petition is dismissed for default. Interim order, if any, deemed to have been vacated. There shallbenoorderas to costs.
As a sequel. Miscellaneous Petitions pending, if any,shallstand
closed.
//TRUE COPY//
SD/- G. HELA NAIDU ASSISTANT REGISTRAR
SECTION OFFICER
To,
- One CC to Sri. Rama Rao Ghanta Advocate [OPUC]
- One CC to Sri. TVS Kumar Advocate [OPUC
- Two CCs to GP for Endowments .High Court Of AndhraPradesh. [OUT]
- Three CD Copies
SAM
y
HIGH COURT DATED:22/03/2024
ORDER
Of
WP.No.8822 of 2011
DISMISSING THIS WP FOR DEFAULT WITHOUT COSTS
IV. Ramanamurthy
The Commissioner, Endowments Department
The Assistant Commissioner, of Endowment Department, Vizianagaram
The Venugopalaswamyvari Devasthanam
B KRISHNA MOHAN
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
