Writ petition filed challenging an appointment of Public Prosecutor ordered to be quashed under Article 226 as violation of Article 14/16 and Cr.P.C. Court dismissed petition as infructuous because the petitioner's term had likely expired.
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 TWENTY FIRST DAY OF JUNE TWO THOUSAND AND FIVE
PRESENT
THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE V.V.S.RAO
WRIT PETITION NO : 8497 of 2001
Between:
Devireddy Srinivasulu Reddy, S/o. Malakonda Reddy, R/o. Ongole, Prakasham District.
..... PETITIONER
AND
Rep. by its Secretary to the Government,
.....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 writ or order or direction more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus declaring G.O.Rt.No.282 Law (L.A. & J Courts.A.2) Department, dated 1- 3-2001 issued by the 1st Respondent as illegal, arbitrary, contrary to public interest and in violation of provisions of Sec.24(4) of Cr.P.C. as also instructions in G.O.Ms.No. 187 Law (L) Department, dated 6-12-2000 and provisions of Art. 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India, and to pass appropriate orders as this Hon’ble court may deem fit and proper in the circumstances of the case.
Counsel for the Petitioner: MR.D.V.SITARAMAMURTHY
Counsel for the Respondents: GP FOR HOME
The Court made the following :
ORDER:
The petitioner is a practicing advocate at Ongole. He is aggrieved by the Government Orders in G.O.Rt.No.282, dated 01.03.2001, whereby and whereunder the third respondent herein was appointed as a Public Prosecutor for the Court of the District and Sessions Judge, Ongole, Prakasham District, for a period of three years from the date of taking charge of the post.
Going by the orders, in all probability, the third respondent completed her term and a new Public Prosecutor must have been appointed. In that view of the matter, leaving open all the questions raised in the writ petition, the writ petition is dismissed as infructuous. No costs.
(V.V.S.RAO, J)
21.06.2005
vs
To
1 The Secretary to Government, Law, Legislative Affairs and (Home) Justice Department, Secretariat, Hyderabad.
2 The District Magistrate and Collector, Ongole, Prakasham District.
3 2 CCs to the Government Pleader for Home, High Court of A.P.,
Hyderabad (OUT).
4 2 CD copies.
2 issues framed by the court
Whether G.O.Rt.No.282 refusing to appoint the petitioner as Public Prosecutor was illegal, arbitrary and in violation of Sec.24(4) of Cr.P.C.
Whether the appointment of the third respondent as Public Prosecutor violated Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India.
3 provisions across 2 enactments
Devireddy Srinivasulu Reddy
The State of Andhra Pradesh
The District Magistrate and Collector
S.Nirmala Devi
V.V.S.RAO
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
