Dismissed¶28

Gubbala Srinivasa Rao v. the State of Ap

Andhra Pradesh HC2 Sept 2025WP/6355/2019

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Vehicle seizure and release; writ of mandamus; Article 226 of the Constitution of India; Section 151 CPC; IA No. 1 of 2019; dismissed as infructuous; no order as to costs; interlocutory applications closed; Gubbala Srinivasa Rao; vehicle AP 27 Y 6498; seizure dated 9.3.2019; release application dated 15.3.2019; Deputy Tahsildar K. Kota; Inspector of Police Vigilance Cell Eluru; District Collector West Godavari District; State of AP Principal Secretary Civil Supplies Department; West Godavari; Justice V. Sujatha; High Court of Andhra Pradesh at Amaravati; decided 03.09.2025.

What did the court decide?

No substantive relief; the writ petition was dismissed as infructuous with no order as to costs, and pending interlocutory applications were directed to stand closed. ¶28

Gubbala Srinivasa Rao Vs the State of Ap — Writ and Judicial Review | Andhra Pradesh HC (2025)

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

No substantive relief; the writ petition was dismissed as infructuous with no order as to costs, and pending interlocutory applications were directed to stand closed.

¶28

Issue for consideration

Whether the action of the 2nd respondent authority in not passing any order on the petitioner's application dated 15.3.2019 for release of vehicle bearing No. AP 27 Y 6498 (seized on 9.3.2019 by respondents 3 and 4) is arbitrary, illegal, null and void and against norms of public policy and principles of natural justice.

¶16

Ratio / Principle

The writ petition is dismissed as infructuous, the Court recording learned counsel's submission that the cause in the writ petition does not survive and the matter has become infructuous; no order as to costs.

¶28

Key takeaways

As a sequel to the dismissal, interlocutory applications pending, if any, shall stand closed.obiter¶29

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Andhra Pradesh High Court at Amaravati (Special Original Jurisdiction), Writ Petition No. 6355 of 2019, decided 03.09.2025 by Justice V. Sujatha (single judge). Gubbala Srinivasa Rao, owner of vehicle bearing No. AP 27 Y 6498, had sought a writ of mandamus under Article 226 of the Constitution declaring arbitrary, illegal and void the inaction of the 2nd respondent (District Collector, West Godavari District) in not passing any order on his application dated 15.3.2019 for release of the vehicle seized on 9.3.2019 by respondents 3 and 4 (Deputy Tahsildar, K. Kota Village and Mandal; Inspector of Police, Vigilance Cell, Eluru), pleading violation of public policy and principles of natural justice; interim release was separately sought through IA No. 1 of 2019 under Section 151 CPC. When the matter was taken up, learned counsel for the petitioner stated that the cause in the writ petition did not survive and the matter had become infructuous. Recording that submission, the Court dismissed the writ petition as infructuous with no order as to costs, and as a sequel directed that pending interlocutory applications, if any, stand closed. The merits of the seizure/release grievance were not adjudicated and no precedent was cited or engaged with.

¶1

APHC010145802019

¶2

[3333]

¶3

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

¶4

WEDNESDAY,THE THIRD DAY OF SEPTEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE

¶5

PRESENT

¶6

THE HONOURABLE SMT JUSTICE V.SUJATHA WRIT PETITION NO: 6355/2019

¶7

Between:

¶8

GUBBALA SRINIVASA RAO, S/O ANJANEYULU, AGED ABOUT 40 YEARS, OWNER OF THE VEHICLE BEARING NO. AP 27 Y 6498, R/O RAGHAVAPURAM VILLAGE, CHINTHALAPUDI MANDAL, WEST GODAVARI DISTRICT

¶9

...PETITIONER

¶10

AND

¶11

THE STATE OF AP, REP., BY THE PRINCIPAL SECRETARY CIVIL SUPPLIES DEPARTMENT, AMARAVATHI, VELAGAPUDI, GUNTUR DISTRICT.

¶12

THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR, WEST GODAVARI DISTRICT, ELURU.

¶13

THE DEPUTY TAHSILDAR, K. KOTA VILLAGE AND MANDAL, WEST GODAVARI DISTRICT.

¶14

THE INSPECTOR OF POLICE, VIGILANCE CELL, ELURU, WEST GODAVARI DISTRICT.

¶15

...RESPONDENT(S):

¶16

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 toTo issue an order or direction or writ more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus declaring the action of the 2nd respondent authority in not passing any order on the application filed by the petitioner on 15.3.2019 for release of the vehicle bearing No. AP 27 Y 6498 seized on 9.3.2019 by the respondents 3 and 4 as arbitrary, illegal, null and void and

¶17

against norms of public policy and principles of natural justice and consequently to direct the respondent authorities to release the vehicle in favour of the petitioner and to pass

¶18

IA NO: 1 OF 2019

¶19

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 be pleased to direct the respondent authorities to release the vehicle bearing No. AP 27Y 6498 in favour of the petitioner pending disposal of the above writ petition and to pass

¶20

Counsel for the Petitioner:

¶21

1.VENKATESWARA RAO GUDAPATI

¶22

Counsel for the Respondent(S):

¶23

1.GP FOR HOME (AP)

¶24

2.GP FOR CIVIL SUPPLIES (AP)

¶25

The Court made the following:

¶26

ORDER :-

¶27

When the matter is taken up today, Ms.Somineni Akhila, representing Mr.Gubbala Srinivasa Rao, learned counsel for the petitioner stated that the cause in the writ petition does not survive and the matter has become infructuous.

¶28