L. Krishna Prasad, Vs The State of Andhra… — Writ and Judicial Review | Andhra Pradesh HC (2025)

L. Krishna Prasad, Vs The State of Andhra… — Writ and Judicial Review | Andhra Pradesh HC (2025)

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Respondent No.2 directed to consider and pass appropriate orders on the petitioner's representation dated 08.11.2024, by following due procedure established by law, within two (02) weeks from receipt of copy of the order; writ disposed of without costs; interlocutory applications, if any, closed.

Issue for consideration

Whether the inaction of respondent No.2 in failing to respond to the petitioner's representations (dated 05.10.2024, 21.10.2024 and 08.11.2024) seeking permission to walk from Dhone to Amaravati for the cause of enacting a bill for protection of advocates is illegal, arbitrary and violative of Articles 14, 19 and 21 of the Constitution, warranting a mandamus. +1 more

Court's answer

This Court held that the Writ Petition could be disposed of at the stage of admission itself without going into the merits of the allegations made in the affidavit.

Ratio / Principle

Respondent No.2 was directed to consider and pass appropriate orders on the petitioner's representation dated 08.11.2024, by following due procedure established by law, within a period of two (02) weeks from the date of receipt of copy of the order.

Key takeaways

Accordingly, the Writ Petition is disposed of, with no costs.ratio¶27
Interlocutory applications pending, if any, shall stand closed.ratio¶28

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Constitutional law — Article 226 mandamus — disposal at admission stage. L. Krishna Prasad and others sought a writ of mandamus declaring the inaction of respondent No.2 — despite continuous representations dated 05.10.2024, 21.10.2024 and 08.11.2024 including e-Mails — in not permitting the petitioner to walk (Padayatra) from Dhone to Amaravati for the cause of enactment of a bill for protection of advocates, as illegal, arbitrary and violative of Articles 14, 19 and 21 of the Constitution. The representation dated 08.11.2024 remained pending with respondent No.2. Without entering the merits of the affidavit's allegations, the High Court of Andhra Pradesh at Amaravati (Special Original Jurisdiction), per B V L N Chakravarthi J, directed respondent No.2 to consider and pass appropriate orders on the representation dated 08.11.2024 following due procedure established by law within two (02) weeks from receipt of copy of the order; the Writ Petition was disposed of at the admission stage, with no costs, and pending interlocutory applications stood closed.

APHC010043712025

IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI

(Special Original Jurisdiction)

[3368]

TUESDAY ,THE ELEVENTH DAY OF FEBRUARY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE

PRESENT

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE B V L N CHAKRAVARTHI

WRIT PETITION NO: 2682/2025

Between:

L. Krishna Prasad, and Others

...PETITIONER(S)

AND

The State Of Andhra Pradesh and Others

...RESPONDENT(S)

Counsel for the Petitioner(S):

1.CORPUS JURIS LAW PANEL LLP

Counsel for the Respondent(S):

1.GP FOR HOME

The Court made the following order:

This Writ Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India is filed for the following relief:

“to issue a Writ Order or Direction more particularly one in the nature of Mandamus declaring the inaction of the 2nd respondent in not giving permission to the petitioner to walk from Dhone to Amaravati for the causes of Advocates for passing a bill for Protection of Advocates despite of continuous representations to the 2nd respondent dated 05 10 2024 21 10 2024 and 08 11 2024 including the e-Mails as illegal arbitrary and contrary to Law much less violative of Article 14 19 and 21

2

of the Constitution of India in the interest of justice and pass such...”

Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Additional Government Pleader appearing for the State.

On a perusal of the record, it appears that the petitioner presented a representation to respondent No.2 on 08.11.2024 seeking permission to go on Padayatra to express his dissent regarding nonlegislation of an act for the protection of advocates and since then, said representation is pending with respondent No.2, for consideration.

In those circumstances, this Court is of considered opinion that the Writ Petition can be disposed of at the stage of admission itself without going into merits of the allegations made in the affidavit, directing respondent No.2 to consider and pass appropriate orders on the petitioner’s representation dated 08.11.2024, by following due procedure established by law, within a period of two (02) weeks from the date of receipt of copy of the order.

Accordingly, the Writ Petition is disposed of. No costs.

Interlocutory applications pending, if any, shall stand closed.

JUSTICE B.V.L.N.CHAKRAVARTHI

Date: 11.02.2025 RMD/PSA

3

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE B.V.L.N. CHAKRAVARTHI

Writ Petition No:2682 OF 2025

Date: 11.02.2025

RMD/PSA