Dismissed¶26

The Executive Officer, v. Government of Andhra Pradesh

Andhra Pradesh HC3 Aug 2025WP/22984/2012

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Andhra Pradesh High Court, Amaravati; W.P. No. 22984/2012; Executive Officer TTD Tirupati v. Govt. of A.P. (Labour Dept.) and Deputy Director ESIC Hyderabad; single-judge order of Gannamaneni Ramakrishna Prasad, J., dated 04.08.2025; writ petition of 2012 dismissed for non-prosecution after two consecutive listings without petitioner's representation; no costs; record preservation for eight weeks; liberty to seek restoration; destruction of record thereafter; interlocutory applications closed; no merits adjudication.

What did the court decide?

The Writ Petition is dismissed for non-prosecution, with no order as to costs. ¶26

The Executive Officer, Vs Government of Andhra Pradesh — Andhra Pradesh HC (2025) — LawSathi Research

¶1

[3328]

¶2

APHC010246962012

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI

¶4

(Special Original Jurisdiction)

¶5

MONDAY, THE FOURTH DAY OF AUGUST TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE

¶6

PRESENT

¶7

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE GANNAMANENI RAMAKRISHNA PRASAD

¶8

WRIT PETITION NO: 22984/2012

¶9

Between:

¶10

THE EXECUTIVE OFFICER,, TIRUMALA TIRUPATI DEVASTHANAMS, TIRUPATI, CHITTOOR DISTRICT.

¶11

...PETITIONER

¶12

AND

¶13

GOVERNMENT OF ANDHRA PRADESH, REPRESENTED BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY, LABOUR, EMPLOYMENT, TRAINING AND FACTORIES-DEPARTMENT, A.P. SECRETARIAT, HYDERABAD-22

¶14

THE DEPUTY DIRECTOR, EMPLOYEES STATE INSURANCE CORPORATION, 5-9-31/1-B, HILL FORT ROAD, HYDERABAD-63

¶15

...RESPONDENT(S):

¶16

Counsel for the Petitioner:

¶17

1.A K JAYAPRAKASH RAO

¶18

Counsel for the Respondent(S):

¶19

1.GP FOR LABOUR

¶20

2.3845/B G RAVINDER REDDY

¶21

The Court made the following:

¶22

¶23

ORAL ORDER:

¶24

When this Writ Petition was listed on 30.07.2025, there was no representation on behalf of the Petitioner. This Court had directed the matter to be listed today under the caption ‘For Dismissal’. Today also, there is no representation on behalf of the Petitioner.

¶25

Since this matter is of the year 2012, this Court is of the opinion that no useful purpose would be served by keeping this matter pending.

¶26

Accordingly, this Writ Petition is dismissed for Non-prosecution. No order as to costs.

¶27

However, there shall be a direction to the Registry to preserve the record for a period of eight (08) weeks from today in order to enable the parties to file an appropriate Application for Restoration, if the Writ Petitioner is of the opinion that the cause of action still survives.

¶28

If such Application is not filed within the fixed time, the Registry is at liberty to destroy the record four (04) weeks after the expiry of the said twelve (08) weeks period.

¶29