Disposed¶26

Pulivarthi Srinivasa Rao v. the State of Andhra Pradesh

Andhra Pradesh HC6 Apr 2025WP/7670/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Andhra Pradesh High Court, Amaravati; W.P. No. 7670/2025; Justice Ravi Cheemalapati; writ petition closed; representation dated 15.03.2025; irregularities by 4th respondent; suspension; disciplinary action; Memo No.G3/1890-2069/2025 dated 28.03.2025; Inspector General of Registration and Stamps; Deputy Inspector General (R&S) enquiry; no costs; notice to 4th respondent not necessary; innocuous relief; miscellaneous applications closed.

What did the court decide?

Writ petition closed without costs, with the Court recording the submissions of both sides; the representation dated 15.03.2025 stands forwarded to the Deputy Inspector General (R&S) for enquiry and report; no notice to the 4th respondent. ¶26

Pulivarthi Srinivasa Rao Vs the State of Andhra Pradesh — Andhra Pradesh HC (2025) — LawSathi Research

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

¶26

Issue for consideration

Whether a direction should be issued to the respondent authorities to dispose of the petitioners' representation dated 15.03.2025 (alleging irregularities by the 4th respondent and seeking his suspension / disciplinary action) within a fixed time frame.

¶22

Court's answer

Since the authority concerned has already considered the petitioners' representation and is taking steps thereon (it having been forwarded to the Deputy Inspector General (R&S) for enquiry and report), there is no purpose in keeping the writ petition pending inviting counters.

¶25

Ratio / Principle

As the relief sought is innocuous and no positive orders were being passed affecting the rights of the 4th respondent, issuing notice to the 4th respondent does not arise.

¶25

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Writ Petition No. 7670/2025, High Court of Andhra Pradesh at Amaravati (Special Original Jurisdiction), Justice Ravi Cheemalapati, 07-04-2025. Petitioners sought a time-bound direction to dispose of their representation dated 15.03.2025 alleging irregularities by the 4th respondent and praying for his suspension or disciplinary action. The Government Pleader, on instructions dated 28.03.2025 (Memo No.G3/1890-2069/2025), submitted that the Inspector General of Registration and Stamps Department had forwarded the representation to the Deputy Inspector General (R&S) for enquiry with directions to report. Holding that the authority had already considered the representation and was acting on it, that there was no purpose in keeping the writ petition pending inviting counters, and that the relief being innocuous with no positive orders affecting the 4th respondent, notice to the 4th respondent was unnecessary. The writ petition was accordingly closed, without costs, and miscellaneous applications, if any, stood closed.

¶1

[3332]

¶2

APHC010146422025

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI

¶4

(Special Original Jurisdiction)

¶5

MONDAY ,THE SEVENTH DAY OF APRIL TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE

¶6

PRESENT

¶7

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE RAVI CHEEMALAPATI WRIT PETITION NO: 7670/2025

¶8

Between:

¶9

Pulivarthi Srinivasa Rao and Others

¶10

...PETITIONER(S)

¶11

AND

¶12

The State Of Andhra Pradesh and Others

¶13

...RESPONDENT(S)

¶14

Counsel for the Petitioner(S):

¶15

1.KANAKALA DEVI PRASANNAKUMAR

¶16

Counsel for the Respondent(S):

¶17

1.GP FOR REGISTRATION AND STAMPS

¶18

The Court made the following order:

¶19

The grievance of the petitioners is that, as against certain irregularities made by the 4^th respondent, they have made a representation on 15.03.2025 but so far no action has been taken by the respondent authorities by duly placing him under suspension or taking disciplinary action against him.

¶20

Heard Sri K.Devi Prasanna Kumar, learned counsel for the petitioners and Sri K.M.Krishna Reddy, learned Government Pleader for Stamps and Registration.

¶21

When the matter is taken up for consideration, learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that, the petitioners have restricted their relief and

¶22

sought for a direction to dispose of the representation dated 15.03.2025 by fixing some time frame.

¶23

Sri K.M.Krishna Reddy, learned Government Pleader on instructions dated 28.03.2025 submitted that, the Inspector General of Registration and Stamps Department has forwarded the said representation to inquire into allegations and sought report on the same. In view of the same, as the authorities have taken steps to dispose of the petitioners representation, the writ petition can be closed and accordingly prayed to close the writ petition.

¶24

Learned counsel for the petitioners requested to record the above submissions and prayed to close the writ petition.

¶25

A perusal of the Memo No.G3/1890-2069/2025 dated 28.03.2025 indicates that the Inspector General of Registration and Stamps Department has forwarded the petitioners representation to Deputy Inspector General (R&S) for enquiry and sought report on the same. As the authority concerned has already considered the petitioners representation and taking steps in that regard, there is no purpose in keeping the writ petition pending inviting counters. As the relief sought is innocuous and no positive orders are being passed affecting the rights of the 4^th respondent and further this Court is inclined to close the writ petition, ordering notice to the 4^th respondent does not arise.

¶26

Accordingly, the writ petition is closed. No costs.

¶27

Miscellaneous applications, pending if any, shall stand closed.

¶28

________________________ JUSTICE RAVI CHEEMALAPATI

¶29

BRS

Pulivarthi Srinivasa Rao v. the State of Andhra Pradesh

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Pulivarthi Srinivasa Rao v. the State of Andhra Pradesh

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

C.Mohan Babu, Chittoor District. Vs Depot Manager, Apsrtc, Chittoor-Ii & Another

Janapala Venkateswara Reddy Vs Sri Pradyumna Ps, IAS

Muchumarri Ramasubba Reddy, Vs Sri. Vandadi Gangaiah

B J Sreedevi Vs the State of Andhra Pradesh

Y. Nagaraju, Kurnool District, Vs the Commissioner of Labour & 2 Others

M. Jagan Mohan Rao, Vs the Chodavaram Coop. Sugars Ltd. & 2 Ors.