Dismissed¶25

Bala Kameshwara Rao S/o Venkappa, v. The Union of India, Rep. by its Secretary, Roads and

Andhra Pradesh HC4 Mar 2026WP/12214/2017

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

WP 12214/2017, APHC Amaravati, K. Sreenivasa Reddy J., dismissed for non-prosecution 05.03.2026; National Highway-216; Notification 10.03.2016 Andhra Jyothi; de-notification of 30.09.2014 Sakshi notification; Union of India Roads and Transport; NHAI; infructuous cause; no costs.

What did the court decide?

No relief; Writ Petition dismissed for non-prosecution with no order as to costs; miscellaneous applications, if any, stand closed. ¶25

Bala Kameshwara Rao S/o Venkappa, Vs The Union of India, Rep. by its Secretary, Roads and — Andhra Pradesh HC (2026) — LawSathi Research

¶1

APHC010592752017

¶2

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

¶3

[3327]

¶4

THURSDAY, THE FIFTH DAY OF MARCH TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY SIX

¶5

PRESENT

¶6

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE K SREENIVASA REDDY

¶7

WRIT PETITION NO.12214 OF 2017

¶8

Between:

¶9

Bala Kameshwara Rao and others

¶10

...PETITIONERS

¶11

AND

¶12

The Union of India, Rep. by its Secretary, Roads and Transport, New Delhi and others

¶13

...RESPONDENTS

¶14

Counsel for the Petitioners:

¶15

1.K SAI KRISHNA MOHAN RAO

¶16

Counsel for the Respondents:

¶17

1.GP FOR LAND ACQUISITION

¶18

2.SS VARMA (SC FOR NHAI)

¶19

The Court made the following ORDER:

¶20

This Writ Petition is filed seeking to declare the action of 3^rd respondent in issuing Notification dated 10.03.2016 in Andhra Jyothi Newspaper with regard to the National Highway-216, without de-notifying the earlier Notification published on 30.09.2014 in Sakshi Daily Newspaper, as arbitrary and illegal and consequently direct 3^rd respondent to cancel the Notification dated 10.03.2016.

¶21

SRK, J WP No.12214 of 2017

¶22

¶23

On earlier occasions, as there was no representation on behalf of the petitioners, the matter was being adjourned from time to time. Whereas, on 23.02.2026, learned counsel for the respondents submitted that cause in the Writ Petition does not survive and the matter has become infructuous. In view of the said reason, the matter was directed to be listed on 02.03.2026 under the caption ‘For Orders’. Again, as there was no representation on behalf of the petitioners on 02.03.2026, the matter was directed to be listed today under the caption ‘For Dismissal’. Though the matter is listed under the caption ‘For Dismissal’, even today also there is no representation on behalf of the petitioners.

¶24

The conduct of the petitioners in not appearing, despite the matter being listed under the captions ‘For Orders’ and ‘For Dismissal’, clearly indicates that they are not interested in prosecuting the case. On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondents already submitted that the cause in the Writ Petition does not survive for adjudication and the matter has become infructuous.

¶25