This is a one-paragraph order dismissing a writ petition under Article 226 as infructuous because the petitioner submitted that no instructions could be provided and was uninterested in pursuing the matter regarding an appointment dispute.
None; writ petition 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.
u.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction)
FRIDAY, THE EIGHTH DAY OF NOVEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FOUR
PRESENT
THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE HARINATH.N
WRIT PETITION NO: 8888 OF 2011
Between:
Ambati Satyanarayana, S/o. PandavaJu, Aged about 35 Years, Occ; NREGS Mate, R/o. Dharmavaram Village, Prathipadu Mandal, East Godavari District.
...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 appropriate writ, order or direction more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus declaring the proceedings bearing N0.E/74/EGS/DWMA/09, dated.2803.2011 of the 4**^ respondentherein as illegal, arbitrary and in violation of the principles of natural justice and
consequently direct the respondents to appoint the petitioner herein in the post of Rozgar Sevak.
I.A. NO: 1 OF 201irWPMP. NO: 11036 OF 2011)
tition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated 'irr the affidavit filed in support of the writ petition, the High Court may be pleased suspend the operation of the proceedings bearing NO.E/74/EGS/DWMA/09 dt. 28-03-2011 of the 4*'^ respondent pending disposal of the main writ petition.
Counsel for the Petitioner: SRI K. V. SESHAGIRI RAO
Counsel for the Respondent Nos.1 to 4 : GP FOR PANCHAYATRAJ& RURAL DEVELOPMENT
Counsel for the Respondent No.5 : SRI M. SUDHIR, SC FOR GRAM PANCHAYAT
Counsel for the Caveator Respondent No.6 : SRI N. SIVAREDDY
The Court made the following: ORDER
A
APHC010081652011
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH SMB AT AMARAVATI [3457]
(Special Original Jurisdiction)
FRIDAY, THE EIGHTH DAY OF NOVEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FOUR PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE HARINATH.N WRIT PETITION NO: 8888/2011
Between:
Ambati Satayanrayana ...PETITIONER
AND
The State Of A P Rep By Its PrI Secretary 5 ...RESPONDENT Others Counsel for the Petitioner:
1.KVSESHAGIRI RAO
Counsel for the Respondent:
1.GP FOR PANCHAYAT RAJ & RURAL DEV
The Court made the following Order:
The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submitsthat
the petitioner has not provided any instructions and appears to be
uninterested in pursuing the matter.
Recording the submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner, the writ petition is dismissed as infructuous. There shall
be no order as to costs.
Pending miscellaneous petitions, if any, shall standclosed.
//TRUE COPY//
SD/- G. HELA NAIDU ASSISTANT REGISTRAR SECTION OFFICER
To,
Cnr
HIGH COURT
DATED:08/11/2024
ORDER
WP.No.8888 of 2011
I 15 MAY 2025
. Current dection . y
DISMISSING THE W.P. AS INFRUCUTOUS WITHOUT COSTS
Ambati Satyanarayana
The State of Andhra Pradesh
Harinath.N
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
