Dismissed¶43

S N Swamy v. the State of Ap

Andhra Pradesh HC27 Jul 2025WP/2870/2019

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Dismissal for non-prosecution of writ petition; no representation by petitioners on two consecutive listings (22.07.2025 and 28.07.2025); mandamus sought to compel consideration of representation dated 21-01-2019; Article 226; Articles 14, 19 and 300A; Section 151 CPC; Chinna Thadinada Grama Panchayath; Krishna District; Kalidindi Mandal; State of AP Panchayathraj Department; Venkateswarlu Nimmagadda, J; decided 28.07.2025; no order as to costs; miscellaneous petitions closed.

What did the court decide?

As there was no representation for the petitioners when the matter was listed on 22.07.2025 and again on 28.07.2025, the court found that the petitioners were not interested in prosecuting the matter. ¶42

S N Swamy Vs the State of Ap — Writ and Judicial Review | Andhra Pradesh HC (2025)

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Dismissed

¶43

Issue for consideration

Whether the respondents' action in not considering the petitioners' representation dated 21-01-2019 was illegal and arbitrary, violating Articles 14, 19 and 300A of the Constitution and principles of natural justice, and whether the respondents should be directed to consider that representation.

¶26

Ratio / Principle

¶42

Key takeaways

On that view, the Writ Petition is dismissed for non-prosecution, with no order as to costs.ratio¶43
Miscellaneous petitions pending, if any, shall stand closed.ratio¶44

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Andhra Pradesh High Court at Amaravati (Special Original Jurisdiction), Writ Petition No. 2870/2019 — S N Swamy and five other agriculturists of Chinna Thadinada village, Kalidindi Mandal, Krishna District v. The State of AP (Principal Secretary, Panchayathraj Department), the District Collector and District Panchayath Officer, Krishna District, the MPDO, Kallidindi Mandal, the Chinna Thadinada Grama Panchayath, and three private individuals. Filed under Article 226 of the Constitution, with IA No. 1 of 2019 under Section 151 CPC, the petition sought a writ of mandamus declaring illegal and arbitrary the respondents' failure to consider the petitioners' representation dated 21-01-2019 (alleging violation of Articles 14, 19 and 300A and principles of natural justice) and directing its consideration. The substantive issue was never argued: when the matter was listed on 22.07.2025 and again on 28.07.2025 there was no representation for the petitioners. Concluding that the petitioners were not interested in prosecuting the matter, Venkateswarlu Nimmagadda, J dismissed the writ petition for non-prosecution on 28.07.2025, with no order as to costs, and closed miscellaneous petitions pending, if any.

¶1

APHC010063492019

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction)

¶3

[3329]

¶4

MONDAY,THE TWENTY EIGHTH DAY OF JULY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE

¶5

PRESENT

¶6

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE VENKATESWARLU NIMMAGADDA WRIT PETITION NO: 2870/2019

¶7

Between:

¶8

S N SWAMY, S/O. SORRA SOMARAJU, AGED ABOUT 60 YEARS, OCC.AGRICULTURE, R/O. CHINNA THADINADA VILLAGE, KALIDINDI MANDAL, KRISHNA DISTRICT

¶9

SORRA PENTAIAH, S/O. SHOBHANADRI, AGED ABOUT 50 YEARS, OCC. AGRICULTURE, R/O. CHINNA THADINADA VILLAGE, KALIDINDI MANDAL, KRISHNA DISTRICT

¶10

SORRA SRINGI RAJU, S/O. SOMARAJU, AGED ABOUT 45 YEARS, OCC. AGRICULTURE,

¶11

SORRA RAJENDRA PRASAD, S/O. VARAHAMURTHY, AGED ABOUT 33 YEARS, OCC. AGRICULTURE,

¶12

SORRA SHOBHANADRI,, S/O. PENTAIAH, AGED ABOUT 30 YEARS, OCC AGRICULTURE,

¶13

SORRA RAJU, S/O. NARASIMHA SWAMY, AGED ABOUT 37 YEARS, OCC. AGRICULTURE, R/O. CHINNA THADINADA VILLAGE, KALIDINDI MANDAL, KRISHNA DISTRICT

¶14

...PETITIONER(S)

¶15

AND

¶16

THE STATE OF AP, REP. BY PRINCIPAL SECRETARY, PANCHAYATHRAJ DEPARTMENT, SECRETARIAT, AMARAVATHI, GUNTUR DISTRICT.

¶17

¶18

THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR, KRISHNA DISTRICT AT MACHILIPATNAM

¶19

THE DISTRICT PANCHAYATH OFFICER, KRISHNA DISTRICT AT MACHILIPATNAM

¶20

THE MANDAL PARISHATH DEVELOPMENT OFFICER MPDO, KALLIDINDI MANDAL, KRISHNA DISTRICT.

¶21

THE CHINNA THADINADA GRAMA PANCHAYATH, REP. BY ITS PANCHAYATH SECRETARY, CHINNA THADINADA VILLAGE AND PANCHAYATH, KALLIDINDI MANDAL, KRISHNA DISTRICT.

¶22

JAMPANA VENKATA PEDDI RAMA RAJU, S/O. KAASI RAJU, AGED ABOUT 60 YEARS, OCC. AGRICULTURE, R/O. CHINNA THADINADA VILLAGE, KALIDINDI MANDAL, KRISHNA DISTRICT

¶23

SEELAM ARJAYA, S/O. PEDDA MAARAY, AGED ABOUT 65 YEARS, OCC. AGRICULTURE, RIO. CHINNA THADINADA VILLAGE, KALIDINDI MANDAL, KRISHNA DISTRICT

¶24

SEELAM PRASAD, S/O. ARJAYA, AGED ABOUT 45 YEARS, OCC. AGRICULTURE, R/O. CHINNA THADINADA VILLAGE, KALIDINDI MANDAL, KRISHNA DISTRICT.

¶25

...RESPONDENT(S):

¶26

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 topleased to issue a Writ or Direction more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus declaring the action of the Respondents in not considering the Petitioners representation dated. 21-1-2019 as illegal, arbitrary, Violation of Article 14, 19 and 300A of the Constitution of India, principles of natural justice and consequently direct the Respondents to consider the Petitioners representation dated 21- 1-2019

¶27

IA NO: 1 OF 2019

¶28

Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased pleased to direct the Respondents to consider the Petitioners representation dated: 21-01-19

¶29

Counsel for the Petitioner(S):

¶30

¶31

1.M RAJESWARI

¶32

Counsel for the Respondent(S):

¶33

1.N SRIHARI (Standing Counsel for ZPP MPP and GRAM PANCHAYAT)

¶34

2.B CHANDRA SHEKHAR

¶35

3.GP FOR PANCHAYAT RAJ RURAL DEV (AP)

¶36

The Court made the following:

¶37

¶38

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE VENKATESWARLU NIMMAGADDA

¶39

WRIT PETITION NO: 2870/2019

¶40

ORDER:

¶41

When the matter was listed on 22.07.2025, there was no representation on behalf of the petitioners. Hence, the matter was directed to be listed today i.e., 28.07.2025, under the caption, ‘for dismissal’.

¶42

Even today also, there is no representation for the petitioners. It appears that, the petitioners are not interested in prosecuting the matter.

¶43

In that view of the matter, the Writ Petition is dismissed for non-prosecution. No order as to costs.

¶44

Miscellaneous petitions pending, if any, shall stand closed.

¶45

_________________________________ VENKATESWARLU NIMMAGADDA, J

¶46

28.07.2025

¶47

SCH