Dismissed¶32

V. Madhava, v. The State Of Andhra Pradesh

Andhra Pradesh HC6 Apr 2025WP/16759/2018

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

V. Madhava and Others v. State of Andhra Pradesh and Others, Writ Petition No. 16759 of 2018, High Court of Andhra Pradesh at Amaravati, decided 07.04.2025 by Dr Justice Venkata Jyothirmai Pratapa. Article 226 mandamus sought against proceedings No.05/2017/SB dated 27.04.2018 dispensing petitioners' services as Work Inspectors in the 4th respondent organization; dismissed as infructuous since petitioners not working and cause did not survive; no costs; pending applications closed.

What did the court decide?

Recording the representation that the petitioners are not working in the organization and the cause does not survive, the Writ Petition is dismissed since the relief has become infructuous; no order as to costs. ¶32

V. Madhava, Vs The State Of Andhra Pradesh — Writ and Judicial Review | Andhra Pradesh HC (2025)

¶1

¶2

APHC010357772018

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI

¶4

(Special Original Jurisdiction)

¶5

[3396]

¶6

MONDAY ,THE SEVENTH DAY OF APRIL TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE

¶7

PRESENT

¶8

THE HONOURABLE DR JUSTICE VENKATA JYOTHIRMAI PRATAPA WRIT PETITION NO: 16759/2018

¶9

Between:

¶10

V. Madhava, and Others

¶11

...PETITIONER(S)

¶12

AND

¶13

The State Of Andhra Pradesh and Others

¶14

...RESPONDENT(S)

¶15

Counsel for the Petitioner(S):

¶16

1.N M KRISHNAIAH

¶17

Counsel for the Respondent(S):

¶18

1.KALYAN CHAKRAVARTHY R

¶19

2.GP FOR REVENUE (AP)

¶20

3.GP FOR HOUSING (AP)

¶21

The Court made the following:

¶22

¶23

THE HONOURABLE DR JUSTICE VENKATA JYOTHIRMAI PRATAPA WRIT PETITION NO: 16759 of 2018

¶24

ORDER:

¶25

This Writ Petition is filed under Article 226 of Constitution of India with

¶26

the following prayer for:

¶27

“…to issue a Writ Order or Direction more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus declaring the action of the respondents in issuing proceedings for disengagement of the services of petitioners and others as work inspectors in the 4th respondent organization and further action of the 5th respondent in issuing proceedings No.05/2017/SB dated 27.04.2018 dispensing the services of the petitioners as highly and arbitrary and contrary to the directions of this Hon’ble Court and consequently direct the respondents to continue the services of the petitioners as Work Inspectors who have obtained court orders for their continuation in the respondent organization for completion of the sanctioned houses by the State Government and the Central Government and pass…”

¶28

Heard Sri N.M.Krishnaiah, learned Counsel for the Petitioners and Sri

¶29

R.Kalyan Chakravarthy, learned Standing Counsel for the respondents.

¶30

It is represented by the learned Standing Counsel for the respondents that the petitioners are not working in the organization and cause does not survive in this Writ petition.

¶31