Dismissed¶41

G. David Raju v. C.G.M., Ap Genco & 2 Ors.

Andhra Pradesh HC12 Feb 2026WP/22585/2017

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Dismissal of writ petition for non-prosecution after repeated non-appearance of petitioner and counsel; writ of mandamus sought against APGENCO authorities over denial of contract labour duty without notice; Articles 226 and 21 of the Constitution of India; Section 151 CPC interim application WPMP 27805 of 2017; Sri Damodaram Sanjeevaiah Thermal Power Station; caption 'for dismissal'; no order as to costs; Andhra Pradesh High Court, Amaravati; Justice Maheswara Rao Kuncheam.

What did the court decide?

Although the writ petition dated from 2017 and the petitioner had been given sufficient opportunities, he evinced no interest in pursuing it and made no representation even when the matter was listed under the caption 'for dismissal'; accordingly, the writ petition is dismissed for non-prosecution, with no order as to costs. ¶40

G. David Raju Vs C.G.M., Ap Genco & 2 Ors. — Writ and Judicial Review | Andhra Pradesh HC (2026)

[3504]

APHC010603772017

IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI

¶5

(Special Original Jurisdiction)

¶6

FRIDAY,THE THIRTEENTH DAY OF FEBRUARY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY SIX

¶7

PRESENT

¶8

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE MAHESWARA RAO KUNCHEAM

¶9

WRIT PETITION NO: 22585/2017

¶10

Between:

¶11

G. DAVID RAJU, S/O IMAM, AGED ABOUT 29 YEARS, OCC: CONTRACT LABOUR, SRI DAMODARAM SANJEEVAIAH THERMAL POWER STATION, NELATURU VILLAGE, MUTHUKURU MANDAL, SPSR NELLORE DISTRICT, R/O D.NO. 2-52, LAXMINAGAR, KOWUR, SPSR NELLORE DISTRICT.

¶12

...PETITIONER

¶13

AND

¶14

C G M AP GENCO 2 ORS, REP. BY ITS CHIEF GENERAL MANAGER VIDYUTH SOUDHA, SOMAJIGUDA, HYDERABAD.

¶15

THE CHIEF ENGINEER OM, A.P. GENCO, SRI DAMODARAM SANJEEVAIAH THERMAL POWER STATION, NELATUR VILLAGE MUTHUKUR MANDAL, SPSR NELLORE DISTRICT.

¶16

THE SUPERINTENDING ENGINEER/ADM, A.P. GENCO, SRI DAMODARAM SANJEEVAIAH THERMAL POWER STATION, NELATUR VILLAGE MUTHUKUR MANDAL, SPSR NELLORE DISTRICT.

¶17

...RESPONDENT(S):

¶18

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 to issue an appropriate Writ, Order or Direction, more particularly one

¶19

¶20

in the nature of Writ of Mandamus, declaring the action of the respondent authorities in not allowing the petitioner to attend to his duties as Contract Labour, without issuing any notice and without following the procedure contemplated under the Statute, as being illegal, arbitrary, unjust, unconstitutional and against to the principles of natural justice and violative of Article 21 of the Constitution of India

¶21

IA NO: 1 OF 2017(WPMP 27805 OF 2017

¶22

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 direct the respondent authorities to continue the petitioner as contract labour, pending disposal of the main Writ Petition

¶23

Counsel for the Petitioner:

¶24

1.G VENKATESWARLU

¶25

Counsel for the Respondent(S):

¶26

1.M. VIDYASAGAR, ( STANDING COUNSEL FOR APGENCO )

¶27

2.K.KRISHNABUSHAN CHOWDARY SC For APGENCO

¶28

The Court made the following:

¶29

¶30

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE MAHESWARA RAO KUNCHEAM WRIT PETITION NO: 22585/2017

¶31

ORDER:-

¶32

The instant writ petition has been filed by the petitioner under Article

¶33

226 of Constitution of India seeking the following main prayer:

¶34

“to issue an appropriate Writ Order or Direction more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus declaring the action of the respondent authorities in not allowing the petitioner to attend to his duties as Contract Labour without issuing any notice and without following the procedure contemplated under the Statute as being illegal arbitrary unjust unconstitutional and against to the principles of natural justice and violative of Article 21 of the Constitution of India”

¶35

On 06.02.2026, this Court passed the following order:

¶36

“None appeared for the petitioner.

¶37

List next week under the caption „for dismissal‟.”

¶38

Today, when the matter is taken-up for hearing, no representation for

¶39

the petitioner even though the matter is listed under the caption „for dismissal‟.

¶40

Apparently, the writ petition is of the year 2017. Despite being given sufficient opportunities, the petitioner has not evinced any interest in pursuing the case. Hence, the writ petition is dismissed for non-prosecution.

¶41