Dismissed¶26

Gadu Venkatappadu, , v. The State of Andhra Pradesh

Andhra Pradesh HC4 Aug 2025WP/13592/2018

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Gadu Venkatappadu v. State of Andhra Pradesh and Others; Writ Petition No. 13592 of 2018; High Court of Andhra Pradesh at Amaravati; K. Sreenivasa Reddy, J.; decided 05.08.2025; cooperative society Chairman/President election dated 27.03.2018 kept in abeyance by Lr.ROC.No.62/E/2017 dated 02.04.2018; Person-in-Charge appointed; writ petition dismissed as infructuous on counsel's submission that cause does not survive; miscellaneous applications closed; no merits decided; no costs or quantum.

What did the court decide?

The Writ Petition is dismissed as infructuous, the Court recording the submission of learned counsel for the petitioner that the cause in the Writ Petition does not survive and the matter has become infructuous. No adjudication on the merits of the challenged action was made. ¶26

Gadu Venkatappadu, , Vs The State of Andhra Pradesh — Andhra Pradesh HC (2025) — LawSathi Research

¶1

APHC010301282018

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH

¶3

AT AMARAVATI

¶4

(Special Original Jurisdiction)

¶5

[3327]

¶6

TUESDAY, THE FIFTH DAY OF AUGUST TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE

¶7

PRESENT

¶8

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE K SREENIVASA REDDY

¶9

WRIT PETITION NO: 13592/2018

Between:

Gadu Venkatappadu, ,

...PETITIONER

AND

The State Of Andhra Pradesh and Others

¶15

...RESPONDENT(S)

¶16

Counsel for the Petitioner:

¶17

1.RAMAKRISHNA PATIVADA

¶18

Counsel for the Respondent(S):

¶19

1.GP FOR COOPERATION (AP)

¶20

2.GP FOR REVENUE (AP)

¶21

The Court made the following:

¶22

¶23

Order:

¶24

This Writ Petition has been filed seeking to declare the action of 4^th respondent in issuing Lr.ROC.No.62/E/2017, dated 02.04.2018 keeping the petitioner’s election to the office of the Chairman/President of the 3^rd respondent, on 27.03.2018, in abeyance, in pursuance of the Note Orders, dated 02.04.2018 issued by 3^rd respondent, and the further action of 4^th respondent in directing 6^th respondent to act as ‘Person-in-Charge’ of 2^nd respondent, as arbitrary, illegal, unjust, without jurisdiction, violative of the Constitutional and Fundamental Rights guaranteed under the Constitution of India, violative of the principles of natural justice, and contrary to the Articles of Association and Rules and Regulations/Bye Laws of 3^rd Respondent, and to consequently, set aside the aforesaid Lr.ROC.No.62/E/2017, dated 02.04.2018.

¶25

Miss A. Vasavi, learned counsel representing on behalf of Sri Ramakrishna Pativada, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioners submits that cause in the Writ Petition does not survive and the matter has become infructuous.

¶26