Dismissed

Ramanna , Radhaswamy, v. The State of Andhra Pradesh

Telangana HC6 Aug 2018WA/752/2018

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Writ petitioners appealed against the dismissal of their PIL regarding interference with spiritual activities at an Ashram, alleging writ signing fraud. The High Court upheld the dismissal, citing guilty conduct for seeking relief alongside signatures obtained post-mortem or under guise, finding no justification to interfere.

What did the court decide?

Writ Appeal dismissed; no order as to costs. Pending miscellaneous applications dismissed.

Ramanna , Radhaswamy, Vs The State of Andhra… — Writ and Judicial Review | Telangana HC (2018)

¶1

HON’BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE SRI THOTTATHIL B. RADHAKRISHNAN

¶2

AND

¶3

HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE V. RAMASUBRAMANIAN

¶4

WRIT APPEAL No.752 OF 2018

¶5

JUDGMENT (ORAL) : (Per Hon’ble Sri Justice V. Ramasubramanian)

¶6

Aggrieved by the dismissal of their writ petition with exemplary costs, some of the surviving writ petitioners have come up with the above Writ Appeal.

¶7

Heard Sri Akella Padma, learned counsel for the appellants. Learned Government Pleader for Revenue takes notice for official respondent Nos.1 and 2 and Sri Ganta Rama Rao, learned senior counsel appears on behalf of unofficial respondent No.3 for whom Sri Ganta Sridhar takes notice.

¶8

The appellants herein along with a few others filed a writ petition seeking to issue a Writ of Mandamus to declare the action of the official respondents in interfering with the spiritual activities allegedly being conducted by them for several decades in the Ashram land comprised in Survey No.44 in 503/2 to an extent of Ac.1-50 cents in D. Golla Hatti of Madakasira Mandal, Ananthapur District. After notices were ordered, a third party filed an application for impleadment and brought to the notice of the learned Judge that two (2) of the forty one (41) writ petitioners were no more on the date of institution of the writ petition and that several other persons had sworn to affidavits to the effect that the first writ petitioner got signatures in

¶9

2 HCJ & VRS,J WA No.752 of 2018

¶10

certain affidavits under the guise of getting electricity connection and that the same had been used to file a writ petition. Shocked by this revelation, the learned Judge dismissed the writ petition with costs of Rs.20,000/-. Therefore, twenty two (22) out of forty one (41) writ petitioners have come up with the above Writ Appeal.

¶11

It is not disputed by the learned counsel for the appellants that as on the date on which the writ petition was instituted, two (2) persons shown as writ petitioners had already died. In respect of a few others, there was a dispute as to whether they had actually signed for the purpose of filing a writ petition or not.

¶12

De hors the dispute with regard to a few writ petitioners, the fact remains that the other writ petitioners were guilty of coming to Court and seeking relief along with two persons who were already dead, Therefore, the learned Judge was right in frowning upon such a practice on behalf of the writ petitioners and dismissed the writ petition with costs. We find no justification to interfere with the said order.

¶13

Hence, the Writ Appeal is dismissed. No order as to costs.

¶14

As a sequel thereto, Miscellaneous Applications, if any, pending

¶15

in the Writ Appeal stand dismissed.

¶16

______________________________________ THOTTATHIL B. RADHAKRISHNAN, CJ

¶17

_____________________________ V. RAMASUBRAMANIAN, J August 6, 2018.

¶18

Ramanna , Radhaswamy, v. The State of Andhra Pradesh

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Ramanna , Radhaswamy, v. The State of Andhra Pradesh

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Borra Ashok Vs District Collector and 3 Others

P.Balamukund Rao Vs Mr Shameem Akthar

Secy., Rev. Dept. Andano. Vs T. Muralidhar Rao and Ano.

Manik Rao Vs Kollam Basi Reddy

Managing Commitee Dargh Khittey Vs Mr. Habeeb Mujtaba and Anothers

M/s. Mytrah Surya Energy Private Limited Vs Union of India