Writ petition under Article 226 challenging DRTA order dismissed for default due to non-appearance of petitioners and counsel despite 'For Dismissal' listing. Interim order vacated.
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)
SATURDAY, THE EIGHTEENTH DAY OF APRIL TWO THOUSAND AND NINE
PRESENT THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE V.ESWARAIAH and
THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE SANJAY KUMAR WRIT PETITION NO : 19728 of 2002
Between:
1.Achanta Ramanadham (Died) S/o.A.Krishna Murthy R/o.Madhavaram Tadepalligudem W.G.Dist.
2. Achanta Rama Sita w/o.Late Achanta Ramanadham
3. Achanta Lakshmipathi s/o.late Achanta Ramanadham
4. Nidamarthi Lakshmi Rajeswari w/o.Venkata Narasimha Murthy
5. Buddavarapu Bhramaramba w/o.Sai Kumar
..... PETITIONERS
AND
.....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 an appropriate writ, order or direction particularly one in the nature of Writ of Certiorari calling for the records in Appeal No.20/1999 on the file of the Debt Recovery Appellate Tribunal, Mumbai and quash the order dated 6-1-2000 passed by the Debt Recovery Appellate Tribunal,Mumbai in Appeal No.20/1999 on its file as being illegal, arbitrary and violative of the principles of natural justice.
Counsel for the Petitioner: MR.TURAGAANIL KUMAR Counsel for the Respondent No.: MR.K.V.SIMHADRI
The Court made the following :
ORDER: (Sri Justice V.Eswaraiah)
When the matter has been taken up for hearing on 17.4.2009, neither the petitioners nor their counsel were present and there was no representation on their behalf. Therefore, the matter was directed to be posted on 18.4.2009 under the caption ‘For Dismissal’. Even today also, though the matter is listed under the caption ‘For Dismissal’ neither the petitioners nor their counsel are present and there is no representation on their behalf.
In the circumstances, the writ petition is dismissed for default. No order as to costs.
The interim order granted earlier shall stand vacated.
________________ V.ESWARAIAH, J. ________________ SANJAY KUMAR, J. 18.4.2009 kpr
Achanta Ramanadham (Died) others
Debt Recovery Appellate Tribunal Mumbai
V.ESWARAIAH
SANJAY KUMAR
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
