Writ petition dismissed for non-prosecution after counsel sought permission to withdraw with liberty to file another, which was denied. The court held that withdrawal without re-institution is permissible, not re-institution.
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.
THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE NOOTY RAMAMOHANA RAO
WRIT PETITION No. 17045 OF 2011
O R D E R:
This is the 6th time this case is taken up for consideration at the admission stage. On 23.06.2011, I have heard Sri K. Raghavacharyulu, learned counsel, who appeared in the matter for the writ petitioners, at great length and with a view to provide an opportunity for reconsidering the matter by the petitioners, the matter was adjourned then by two weeks. Thereafter, again the matter has undergone three more adjournments.
Today, the learned counsel deputizing for Sri K.
Raghavacharyulu submits that the petitioners may be permitted to withdraw the Writ Petition with liberty to file another Writ Petition after properly drafting the pleadings. The contesting respondents have already entered appearance and they filed the counter-affidavits in the matter. They oppose the said request.
It is one thing to say that the remedies available under law be allowed to be pursued instead of pursuing the present Writ Petition. It would be altogether a different thing to seek permission to re-institute another Writ Petition. I do not think permission should be accorded for re-institution of another Writ Petition after a while, as it is not proper for the courts to allow parties to speculate. If the petitioners are not interested in pursing this Writ Petition, the choice left to them is to withdraw the same to pursue such other remedies as are available to them under law, particularly when the proceedings, which are to be taken up by the Tahsildar/Mandal Revenue Officer are independent proceedings and appeal and revision remedies are already provided thereafter under the Andhra Pradesh Rights in Land and Pattadar
Passbooks Act, 1971.
Therefore, this Writ Petition is dismissed for non-prosecution, as the learned counsel for the writ petitioners appearing today is not willing to make any more submissions in the matter, except requesting for withdrawing the Writ Petition with liberty to re-institute another Writ Petition. No costs.
---------------------------------(NOOTY RAMAMOHANA RAO, J)
19th July 2011 ksld
1 provisions across 1 enactments
Writ Petitioners
Contesting Respondents
Nooty Ramamohana Rao
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
