Dismissed¶33

Ch.Suvarchala v. The State of Andhra Pradesh

Andhra Pradesh HC10 Mar 2025WP/5681/2019

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Writ petition (Art. 226) dismissed for non-prosecution; petitioner absent when called and apparently disinterested; counsel noted no-objection given in 2020. Relief sought: mandamus against respondent Nos. 2 to 4 for not considering representations dated 08.10.2018 and 31.12.2018 for completion of enquiry against 6th respondent pursuant to proceedings Rc.No. 120/2017/A2 dated 30.05.2017; direction sought to respondent Nos. 3 and 4 to complete enquiry. No order as to costs; pending applications closed. High Court of Andhra Pradesh at Amaravati; single judge (Dr. Justice Venkata Jyothirmai Pratapa); respondents include State of Andhra Pradesh and APSRTC.

What did the court decide?

The petitioner, when called, was not present, and it appeared to the Court that she had no interest in proceeding with the matter. ¶30

Ch.Suvarchala Vs The State of Andhra Pradesh — Writ and Judicial Review | Andhra Pradesh HC (2025)

¶1

¶2

APHC010126682019

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI

¶4

(Special Original Jurisdiction)

¶5

[3396]

¶6

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

¶7

PRESENT

¶8

THE HONOURABLE DR JUSTICE VENKATA JYOTHIRMAI PRATAPA WRIT PETITION NO: 5681/2019

Between:

Ch.Suvarchala

...PETITIONER

AND

The State Of Andhra Pradesh and Others

¶14

...RESPONDENT(S)

¶15

Counsel for the Petitioner:

¶16

1.G V S MEHAR KUMAR

¶17

Counsel for the Respondent(S):

¶18

1.P DURGA PRASAD SC FOR APSRTC

¶19

2.GP FOR PROHIBITION EXCISE (AP)

¶20

3.P DURGA PRASAD

¶21

The Court made the following:

¶22

¶23

THE HONOURABLE DR JUSTICE VENKATA JYOTHIRMAI PRATAPA WRIT PETITION NO: 5681/2019

¶24

ORDER:

¶25

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

¶26

the following prayer for:

¶27

“…to issue writ of mandamus or any other appropriate writ or direction declaring the action of the respondent Nos. 2 to 4 in not considering the representations dated 08.10.2018 and 31.12.2018 for completion of enquiry against the 6th respondent in pursuance of the proceedings issued by the 4th respondent in Rc.No. 120/2017/A2 dated 30.05.2017 is illegal, arbitrary and violative of principals of natural justice and consequently direct the 3rd and 4th respondents to complete the enquiry in pursuance of the proceedings issued by the 4th respondent forthwith District…”

¶28

Sri G.V.S.Meher Kumar, learned counsel on record would submit that

¶29

they have given No-objection in the year 2020 itself.

¶30

The petitioner is called, not present. It appears, they have no interest in proceeding with this matter. It is a case where the petitioner is seeking indulgence of this Court on the inaction of the respondent Nos. 2 to 4 for not considering her representations for completion of enquiry and seeking direction to respondent Nos. 3 and 4 to complete the enquiry.

¶31