Dismissed¶37

S. Nandan Rao v. Government of Andhra Pradesh rep by its Principal

Andhra Pradesh HC3 Jul 2025WP/35317/2013

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Dismissal for non-prosecution / default; writ petition listed under caption 'for dismissal'; no representation by petitioner; writ of mandamus under Article 226 of the Constitution of India; Circular No.296/DW/2000 dated 19.03.2000 issued by 2nd respondent (A P Industrial Infrastructure Corp Ltd / APIIC); enquiry report dated 25.10.2013 against 3rd respondent (Eluru Town Automobile Mechanics Association); Section 151 CPC applications WPMP 43892, 45593 and 193814 of 2013; no costs; miscellaneous petitions closed; Subba Reddy Satti, J.; decided 04.07.2025; merits not adjudicated.

What did the court decide?

None. The writ petition was dismissed for non-prosecution with no costs; miscellaneous petitions pending, if any, were directed to stand closed. The merits of the impugned circular were not adjudicated. ¶37

S. Nandan Rao Vs Government of Andhra… — Writ and Judicial Review | Andhra Pradesh HC (2025)

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

¶37

Issue for consideration

Whether Circular No.296/DW/2000 dated 19.03.2000 issued by the 2nd respondent is illegal, arbitrary, unjust and unconstitutional besides contrary to Rule of Law, and whether it should be set aside with a direction to the 2nd respondent to initiate action pursuant to the enquiry report dated 25.10.2013 against the 3rd respondent. (Framed from the petition's prayer; the Court did not adjudicate this issue.)

¶17

Ratio / Principle

As there was no representation for the petitioner when the matter was listed on 03.07.2025, and again none in the forenoon or afternoon of 04.07.2025 despite listing under the caption 'for dismissal', the Court found the petitioner was not interested in prosecuting the writ petition and dismissed it for non-prosecution.

¶37

Key takeaways

Miscellaneous petitions pending, if any, were directed to stand closed consequent upon dismissal of the writ petition.ratio¶38

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Writ Petition No. 35317 of 2013 (S. Nandan Rao v. Government of Andhra Pradesh, A P Industrial Infrastructure Corp Ltd and Eluru Town Automobile Mechanics Association), High Court of Andhra Pradesh at Amaravati, Subba Reddy Satti, J., decided 04.07.2025 — DISMISSED FOR NON-PROSECUTION. Filed in 2013 under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petition sought a writ of mandamus declaring Circular No.296/DW/2000 dated 19.03.2000 issued by the 2nd respondent illegal, arbitrary, unjust, unconstitutional and contrary to Rule of Law, and prayed for action pursuant to an enquiry report dated 25.10.2013 against the 3rd respondent; interim applications under Section 151 CPC included one to suspend operation of the circular pending disposal. With no representation for the petitioner on 03.07.2025, and again none in the forenoon or afternoon of 04.07.2025 when the matter was listed under the caption 'for dismissal', the Court held the petitioner appeared not interested in prosecuting the petition and dismissed it for non-prosecution; no costs were imposed, and miscellaneous petitions pending, if any, stood closed. The merits of the impugned circular were not decided.

¶1

[3331]

¶2

APHC010089352013

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI

¶4

(Special Original Jurisdiction)

¶5

FRIDAY,THE FOURTH DAY OF JULY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE

¶6

PRESENT

¶7

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE SUBBA REDDY SATTI

¶8

WRIT PETITION NO: 35317/2013

¶9

Between:

¶10

S. NANDAN RAO, S/ O. VENKATA RATNAM, AGED 54 YEARS, OCC: FOUNDRY BUSINESS, R/O. LAKSHMIVARIPET, ELURU, WEST GODAVARI DISTRICT.

¶11

...PETITIONER

¶12

AND

¶13

GOVERNMENT OF ANDHRA PRADESH REP BY ITS PRINCIPAL, SECRETARY INDUSTRIES & COMMERCE, SECRETARIAT, HYDERABAD

¶14

A P INDUSTRIAL INFRASTRUCTURE CORP LTD REP BY ITS VICE, CHAIRMAN & MG.DIRECTOR PARISHRAM BHAVAN, BASHEERBAGH,HYDERABAD.

¶15

ELURU TOWN AUTOMOBILE MECHANICS ASSOCIATION, MALKAPURAM, OPP. ASHRAM HOSPITAL, ELURU, WEST GODAVARI DISTRICT, REP BY ITS SECRETARY Y.RAMAKRISHNA

¶16

...RESPONDENT(S):

¶17

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 toIssue a Writ/Order/Direction more particularly one in the nature of writ of mandamus declaring the impugned circular No.296/ DW/ 2000 dt.19.03.2000 issued by 2nd respondent is illegal, arbitrary, unjust and unconstitutional besides contrary to Rule of Law and consequently set aside

¶18

Page 2 of 4

¶19

the impugned circular No.296/ DW/ 2000 dt.19.03.2000 by directing the 2nd respondent to initiate action pursuant to enquiry report dt.25.10.2013 submitted against 3rd respondent and to pass

¶20

IA NO: 1 OF 2013(WPMP 43892 OF 2013

¶21

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 suspend the operation of impugned circular No.296/ DW/ 2000 dt.19.03.2000 issued by the 2nd respondent pending disposal of the writ petition and to pass

¶22

IA NO: 2 OF 2013(WPMP 45593 OF 2013

¶23

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 to receive the additional affidavit filed in W.P.No. 35317 of 2013

¶24

IA NO: 5 OF 2013(WPMP 193814 OF 2013

¶25

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

¶26

Counsel for the Petitioner:

¶27

1.SRINIVASULU KURRA

¶28

Counsel for the Respondent(S):

¶29

1.DEEPIKA GADDE

¶30

2.P ROY REDDY

¶31

3.GP FOR INDUSTRIES & COMMERCE

¶32

The Court made the following order:

¶33

Since there was no representation on behalf of the petitioner when the matter was listed 03.07.2025, the matter was directed to be listed today under the caption ‘for dismissal’.

¶34

Despite the writ petition being listed today under the caption ‘for dismissal’, there is no representation for the petitioner either in the forenoon or

¶35

Page 3 of 4

¶36

in the afternoon. It seems the petitioner is not interested in prosecuting the writ petition.

¶37