The High Court of Andhra Pradesh dismissed Writ Petition No. 595 of 2003 for non-prosecution as the petitioner failed to appear despite being listed.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD
(Special Original Jurisdiction)
THURSDAY, THE SIXTEENTH DAY OF DECEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND FOUR
PRESENT
THE HON'BLE MS JUSTICE G.ROHINI
WRIT PETITION NO : 595 of 2003
Between:
T.Srinivas S/o T. Narayana Aged 50 years, R/o 7-8/3 Raghavendra Nagar, Nacharam Uppal (M), Ranga reddy District
..... PETITIONER
AND
1. State of Andhra Pradesh represented by its Secretary, General Administration, Secretariat Buildings, Saifabad, Hyderabad
2. V. Srilatha w/o M. Srinivas Aged 27 years, Landlady, H. No. 2-50, Street No.1, Kakateya Nagar Habsiguda Hyderbad
3. The District Judge, Ranga Reddy District
....RESPONDENTS
Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed herein the High Court may be pleased to issue an appropriate writ order or direction more particularly a Writ of Mandamus declaring G.O.Ms. No. 636 as arbitrary illegal, unjust contrary to law in violation of provisions of the A.P. Buildings (Lease, Rent and Eviction) Control Act and issue the consequential direction that the Civil Courts have no jurisdiction to try the lis between the petitioner and the 2nd respondent and that the 2nd respondent can claim any relief if advised only before the Authorities under the A.P Buildings (Lease Rent and Eviction) Control Act.
COUNSEL FOR THE PETITIONER: MR.L. RAVICHANDER (NOT PRESENT)
COUNSEL FOR RESPONDENT NO.1: GP FOR GENERAL ADMINISTRATION
COUNSEL FOR RESPONDENT NO.2: MR.K.SARVA BHOUMA RAO
COUNSEL FOR RESPONDENT NO.3:
The Court made the following:
ORDER:
There was no representation for the petitioner on 15-12-2004 and, therefore, the matter is listed today under the caption “for dismissal”. Even today none appears for the petitioner. Obviously, the petitioner is not interested in prosecuting the matter. Accordingly, the writ petition is dismissed for non-prosecution. No costs.
16-12-2004.
lrkm
To
1. The Secretary General Administration
State of Andhra Pradesh Secretariat Buildings Saifabad, Hyderabad 2. The District Judge, Ranga Reddy District
3. 2 CCs to GP for General Education, High Court Buildings,
High Court of A.P.Hyderabad (OUT).
4. 2 CD copies.
T. Srinivas
State of Andhra Pradesh
V. Srilatha
District Judge, Ranga Reddy District
G. Rohini
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
