On 5.7.2005, the High Court of Andhra Pradesh dismissed Writ Petition No. 20376 of 2001 filed for a writ of mandamus without hearing, due to non-prosecution by the parties.
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)
TUESDAY, THE FIFTH DAY OF JULY TWO THOUSAND AND FIVE
PRESENT
THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE R.SUBHASH REDDY
WRIT PETITION NO : 20376 of 2001
Between:
1 G.Narendra Babu, S/o G.S.Bashyam R/o 1-1-230/16/F Chikkadpally, Hyderabad
2 G.Prabhakar Rao, S/o Bashyam R/o 1-1-230/16C, Chikkadpally, Hyderabad.
..... PETITIONERS
AND
.....RESPONDENTS
Petition under Article 226 of the constitution of India praying that in the circumstances stated in the Affidavit filed herein the High Court will be pleased to issue an order, direction or writ one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus declaring the action of the respondent No.1 and 1 in disconnecting the electricity Service No F4004316 and F4001086 to the petitioner houses bearing No.1-1-230/16/A to F in spite of payment of electricity charges as arbitrary, illegal void contrary to the Art, 14 and 21 of the Constitution of India and direct the respondents No. 1 and 2 not to disconnect the electricity service connections bearing No. F4004316 and F4001086 to the petitioners houses bearing No 1-1-230/16/A to F in the interest of justice. Counsel for the Petitioners:MRCHETLURU SREENIVAS ( not present) Counsel for the Respondent NO.3: MR.K.V.UPENDRA GUPTA ( not present) Counsel for the Respondent Nos. 1 and 2: Mr. K.N.JWALA ( not present)
The Court made the following :
ORAL ORDER:
When this writ petition came up for hearing on 30.6.2005, there was no representation on either side and, accordingly, it was adjourned to 5.7.2005, under the caption ‘for dismissal’. Even today, there is no representation on either side.
In that view of the matter, this writ petition is dismissed for non-prosecution. No order as to costs.
5.7.2005
CVM
To,
1. 2 CD copies.
2 provisions across 1 enactments
G.Narendra Babu
G.Prabhakar Rao
The Asst. Engineer, Ashok Nagar Section
The Chief Engineer, A.P. Transco Khairatabad
D.Jagadamba
R.Subhash Reddy
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
