Skip to content

The research platform for Indian law — judgements, legislation and the citations between them. Free to search, with the original document behind every result.

A product of LawSathi.

Research

Search Legislation Research tools

Browse

Courts Case types Topics Most-cited judgements Sources

LawSathi

Practice platform Blog

© 2026 LawSathiTerms PrivacyResearch aid, not the official record.

T.Koteswara Rao, Vs The Regional… — Writ and Judicial Review | Andhra Pradesh HC (2026)

Home
Andhra Pradesh HC
2026
T.Koteswara Rao, Vs The Regional P.F.CommissionerT.Koteswara Rao, v. The Regional P.F.Commissioner

Dismissed¶¶40

T.Koteswara Rao, v. The Regional P.F.Commissioner

Andhra Pradesh HC19 Apr 2026WP/4902/2015

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

APHC010404332015; High Court of Andhra Pradesh at Amaravati (Special Original Jurisdiction); WRIT PETITION No.4902 of 2015; petitioner T. Koteswara Rao (agricultural cooli, Inkollu, Prakasam District); respondents: The Regional P F Commissioner, Sub Regional Office, Visakhapatnam-530009 and T Jeevitha (Inkollu, Prakasam District); subject: family pension for EPF Account No. GR/VSP/2760/13968; Lokadalat, Ongole award; Article 226 of the Constitution of India; Section 151 CPC; IA No.1 of 2015 (WPMP 6529 of 2015), IA No.4 of 2015 (WPMP 34134 of 2015), IA No.1 of 2016 (WPMP 171709 of 2016); counsel G Vasantha Rayudu, M Uma Devi (Central Govt Counsel), B Narasimha Sarma; Sri Justice Battu Devanand; dismissal for non-prosecution; no order as to costs; miscellaneous petitions closed; decided 20.04.2026.

What did the court decide?

The writ petition is dismissed for non-prosecution, the petitioner having shown no interest in prosecuting the case despite repeated chances.

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Dismissed

Issue for consideration

Whether the writ petition, in which the petitioner repeatedly failed to appear, should be dismissed for non-prosecution.

Court's answer

The writ petition is dismissed for non-prosecution, the petitioner having shown no interest in prosecuting the case despite repeated chances.

Ratio / Principle

There shall be no order as to costs.

Key takeaways

Pending miscellaneous petitions, if any, shall stand closed.ratio¶¶42

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

WRIT PETITION No.4902 of 2015 (T. Koteswara Rao v. The Regional P F Commissioner, Visakhapatnam and another), High Court of Andhra Pradesh at Amaravati, decided 20.04.2026 by Sri Justice Battu Devanand — Petition under Article 226 seeking a mandamus against the refusal of the Regional P F Commissioner to grant family pension for EPF Account No. GR/VSP/2760/13968 (with interim prayers under Section 151 CPC invoking a Lokadalat, Ongole award) DISMISSED FOR NON-PROSECUTION: the petitioner was unrepresented on nine successive hearing dates from 09.09.2025 to 06.04.2026, and a last chance given under the caption 'for dismissal' also went unavailed; no order as to costs; pending miscellaneous petitions closed. No merits issue was decided.

A

APHC010404332015

[3207]

IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI

(Special Original Jurisdiction)

MONDAY,THE TWENTIETH DAY OF APRIL TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY SIX

PRESENT

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE BATTU DEVANAND

WRIT PETITION NO: 4902/2015

Between:

T.KOTESWARA RAO,, S/O. BHASKARA RAO AGED ABOUT 75 YEARS, OCC : AGRICULTURAL COOLI R/O. INKOLL U, PRAKASAM DISTRICT.

...PETITIONER

AND

THE REGIONAL P F COMMISSIONER, SUB REGIONAL OFFICER, VUDA LAYOUT, MARRIPALEM, NAD POST, VISAKHAPATNAM - 530009.

T JEEVITHA, W/O. LATE. RAJESH BABU, AGED ABOUT 24 YEARS, OCC : TEACHER R/O. INKOLLU, PRAKASAM DISTRICT.

...RESPONDENT(S):

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 a writ, order or direction more so, a writ in the nature of Mandamus by decalring the action of the 1st respondent in refusing to admit the petitioner for family pension for EPF Account No.GR/VSP/2760/13968 as arbitrary illegal, inequitable unjust and consequentiay to direct the 1st respondent to pay the famiy pension to the petitioner and may pass.

IA NO: 1 OF 2015(WPMP 6529 OF 2015

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 1st respondent to consider for payment of family pension to the

2

petitioner as a nominee and as per the award passed by the Lokadalat, Ongole for EPF Account No.GR/VSP/2760/ 13968 during the pendency cf the above writ petition and may pass

IA NO: 4 OF 2015(WPMP 34134 OF 2015

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

IA NO: 1 OF 2016(WPMP 171709 OF 2016

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

Counsel for the Petitioner:

1.G VASANTHA RAYUDU

Counsel for the Respondent(S):

1.M UMA DEVI (CENTRAL GOVT COUNSEL)

2.B NARASIMHA SARMA

The Court made the following:

3

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE BATTU DEVANAND WRIT PETITION No.4902 of 2015

ORDER: -

On 09.09.2025, 25.11.2025, 16.12.2025, 19.01.2026, 02.02.2026, 16.02.2026, 02.03.2026, 18.03.2026 and 06.04.2026, there was no

representation for the petitioner.

To give a last chance, it is posted today, under the caption “for

dismissal”. Today also, there is no representation.

It appears that the petitioner has no interest to prosecute the

case.

Accordingly, this writ petition is dismissed for non-prosecution.

There shall be no order as to costs.

Miscellaneous petitions pending, if any, shall stand closed.

_________________________

Date: 20.04.2026

SA

4

148

THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE BATTU DEVANAND

WRIT PETITION NO.4902 of 2015

Dt.20.04.2026 SA

Issues for consideration

1 issue framed by the court

AI extract

1.
Whether the writ petition, in which the petitioner repeatedly failed to appear, should be dismissed for non-prosecution.¶¶38
The court held
The writ petition is dismissed for non-prosecution, the petitioner having shown no interest in prosecuting the case despite repeated chances.ratio¶¶40

Statutes considered

2 provisions across 2 enactments

AI extract

Constitution of IndiaArticle 226¶¶16
Code of Civil ProcedureSection 151¶¶18

Procedural history

How this case reached the court

AI extract

Order under challenge
Action of respondent No.1 (Regional P F Commissioner, Visakhapatnam) in refusing to admit the petitioner for family pension for EPF Account No. GR/VSP/2760/13968, challenged as arbitrary, illegal, inequitable and unjust.¶¶16
Respondent No.1 - The Regional P F Commissioner, Sub Regional Office, Visakhapatnam
Prior proceeding
An award was passed by the Lokadalat, Ongole for EPF Account No. GR/VSP/2760/13968, invoked in the petitioner's interim application.¶¶20
Prior proceeding
IA No.1 of 2015 (WPMP No.6529 of 2015) under Section 151 CPC sought an interim direction to the 1st respondent to consider payment of family pension to the petitioner as nominee, per the Lokadalat Ongole award, during pendency of the writ petition.¶¶18
Prior proceeding
IA No.4 of 2015 (WPMP No.34134 of 2015) filed under Section 151 CPC; its prayer is truncated in the record.¶¶21
Prior proceeding
IA No.1 of 2016 (WPMP No.171709 of 2016) filed under Section 151 CPC; its prayer is truncated in the record.¶¶23
Prior proceeding
No representation for the petitioner on nine hearing dates (09.09.2025, 25.11.2025, 16.12.2025, 19.01.2026, 02.02.2026, 16.02.2026, 02.03.2026, 18.03.2026 and 06.04.2026); the case was posted as a last chance under the caption 'for dismissal', and there was again no representation on that date.¶¶34

Parties & counsel

AI extract

petitioner
T.KOTESWARA RAO¶¶10
G VASANTHA RAYUDU
respondent
THE REGIONAL P F COMMISSIONER, SUB REGIONAL OFFICER, VISAKHAPATNAM - 530009¶¶13
M UMA DEVI, B NARASIMHA SARMA
respondent
T JEEVITHA¶¶14

Coram

AI extract

Sri Justice Battu Devanandauthor¶¶7

Case details

As recorded by the court registry

Court: Andhra Pradesh HC
Decided on: 19 Apr 2026 · April
Registered: 27 Feb 2015
Case no.: WP/4902/2015
CNR: APHC010404332015
Topic: Writ and Judicial Review
Bench: Battu Devanand
Disposal: DISMISSED AS NON PROSECUTION
Case type: WRIT PETITION

Similar cases

Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court

Finding judgements on the same questions…

More from Battu Devanand

Midthipati Rama Rao Vs Pulagala Appaiamma
16 Apr 2026
Shoba Mannepu Vs Union of India
16 Apr 2026
Pothuganti Babul Saheb Vs the Union of India
16 Apr 2026
P Ravi Kumar Vs Power Grid Corporation of India Ltd.
19 Apr 2026
B.Padmavathi Vs the Union of India
19 Apr 2026
Sri Annamacharya Iti, Vs The Union of India, Rep. by its Principal Secretary
19 Apr 2026

Cite this judgement

T.Koteswara Rao, v. The Regional P.F.Commissioner, WP/4902/2015 (AP), decided on 19 April 2026.

The High Court of Andhra Pradesh publishes no neutral citation for this judgement — cite it by case number and date of decision.

Statutes2

Constitution of IndiaArticle 226
Code of Civil ProcedureSection 151

View all statutes

Procedural history6

Action of respondent No.1 (Regional P F Commissioner, Visakhapatnam) in refusing to admit the petitioner for family pension for EPF Account No. GR/VSP/2760/13968, challenged as arbitrary, illegal, inequitable and unjust.Respondent No.1 - The Regional P F Commissioner, Sub Regional Office, Visakhapatnam
An award was passed by the Lokadalat, Ongole for EPF Account No. GR/VSP/2760/13968, invoked in the petitioner's interim application.
IA No.1 of 2015 (WPMP No.6529 of 2015) under Section 151 CPC sought an interim direction to the 1st respondent to consider payment of family pension to the petitioner as nominee, per the Lokadalat Ongole award, during pendency of the writ petition.

View full history

Bench / Coram

Sri Justice Battu Devanand

Parties & counsel