Petitioners seeking a writ of Mandamus regarding the change in alignment of an outer ring road failed to appear. The High Court dismissed the writ petition for default due to lack of prosecution.
The writ petition was dismissed for default due to the petitioner's failure to appear or be represented.
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)
MONDAY, THE TENTH DAY OF NOVEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND EIGHT
PRESENT
THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE A.GOPAL REDDY and THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE VILAS V. AFZULPURKAR
WRIT PETITION NO : 23482 of 2008
Between:
1 M/s. Consumer Development Committee Regd No. 87-94, Rep. its Authorised Person, Syed Mohd. Rafi S/o. Khader Vali,. aged 35 yrs Occ: Private Employee, D.No. 5- 60-78/1, 5th Lane, Kobal Pet, Guntur. 2 ASARA (A socio Legal Forum) Rep. by its Chairman Sri Jagarlamudi Mallikarjuna Rao
..... PETITIONER(S)
AND
1 The State of Andhra Pradesh, Rep. by its Principle Secretary, Municipal Administration & Urban Development Department, Secretariat Building, Saifabad, Hyderabad. 2 The Vijayawada -Guntur-Tenali-Mangalagiri Urban Development Authority D.No. 6/12, Bordipet, Guntur, Rep. by its Vice Chairman 3 The District Collector, Guntur.
.....RESPONDENT(S)
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 a writ order or direction more particularly one in the nature of writ of Mandamus and declare the action of the respondents in changing the alignment of outer ring road of Guntur the road between Autonagar to JKC College (6.5 KMs) and also not publishing of notification of proposed changed of alignment as contemplated
under Section 12 of Andhra Pradesh Areas Development Act 1975 as illegal, arbitrary and consequently direct the respondents to prepare proper layout of the outer ring road which is suitable to the regulating the national high way traffic so that the national high way traffic does not tpass through the Guntur City and disturb and areas of Guntur City and pass such other orders and further orders in the interest of justice.
Counsel for the Petitioners: Not present
Counsel for Respondent No.1: GP FOR MUNCIPAL ADMN. & URBAN DEV.
Counsel for Respondent No.2: Smt. G. Jhansi
Counsel for Respondent No.3: Government Pleader for Revenue
The Court made the following :
ORDER: (Per Sri A. Gopal Reddy, J)
When the matter was taken up for hearing, none represented the petitioners on 03-11-2008 and also on 04-11-2008. Therefore, the matter was directed to be posted under the caption ‘for dismissal’. Even today, neither the learned counsel for the petitioners is present nor there is any representation, which shows that the counsel is not evincing any interest in prosecuting the matter.
Hence, the writ petition is dismissed for default.
A. GOPAL REDDY, J
VILAS V. AFZULPURKAR, J
10-11-2008
ks
........REGISTRAR
To
1 The State of Andhra Pradesh, Rep. by its Principle Secretary, Municipal Administration & Urban Development Department, Secretariat Building, Saifabad, Hyderabad. 2 The Vijayawada -Guntur-Tenali-Mangalagiri Urban Development Authority D.No. 6/12, Bordipet, Guntur, Rep. by its Vice Chairman 3 The District Collector, Guntur. 4 Two CCs to the Government Pleader for Municipal Administration and Urban Development, High Court of Andhra Pradesh, Hyderabad (OUT). 5 Two CCs to the Government Pleader for Revenue, High Court of Andhra Pradesh, Hyderabad (OUT). 6 Two CD copies.
1 provisions across 1 enactments
M/s. Consumer Development Committee & ASARA
State of Andhra Pradesh
Vijayawada-Guntur-Tenali-Mangalagiri Urban Development Authority
District Collector, Guntur
A. Gopal Reddy
Vilas V. Afzulpurkar
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
