The High Court dismissed a writ petition by the petitioner for non-prosecution as no counsel appeared despite prior adjournments attributed to the petitioner's side.
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 C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY
Writ Petition No.23443 of 2013
Dated 1 0 th October, 2013
Between:
K.Srinivasulu
…Petitioner
and
The Government of Andhra Pradesh, rep.by its Principal Secretary, Revenue Department, Secretariat, Hyderabad and another
…Respondents
Counsel for the petitioner: ---
Counsel for the respondents: AGP for Revenue
The Court made the following:
ORDER:
This writ petition is filed for the following substantive relief:
“…to issue a writ, order or direction more particularly one in nature of writ of Mandamus declaring the Endorsement Rc.No.491/E/2013, dated 10.07.2013, issued by the Tahsildar, Anantapuram, Anantapur District as arbitrary, illegal, contrary to the statute and violative of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India and consequently direct the 2nd respondent to issue Annexure-II.”
On all the three previous occasions, the case was adjourned due to the reasons attributable to the learned counsel for the petitioner. Today when the case is called, there is no representation for the petitioner. Hence, it is reasonable to presume that the petitioner is not interested in pursuing his cause in the writ petition.
The writ petition is accordingly dismissed for non-prosecution.
As a sequel to dismissal of the writ petition, W.P.M.P.No.28804 of 2013 shall stand disposed of as infructuous.
C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY, J
10th October, 2013 VGB
K.Srinivasulu
The Government of Andhra Pradesh
C.V.Nagarjuna Reddy
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
