Research › Search › Judgment

High Court of Andhra Pradesh · body

2015 DAILYLAW 971 (AP)

Ch. Sreenivasa Rao, v. Commissioner and Director of Agriculture,

WP/22241/2015 · 2026-04-14

B S Bhanumathi

body2015

Judgment text

Extracted from the PDF above. The PDF is authoritative.

APHC010614482015 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3311] Wednesday, the Fifteenth day of April Two Thousand and Twenty Six Present The Honourable Ms. Justice B.S.Bhanumathi Writ Petition No:22241 of 2015 Between: Ch. Sreenivasa Rao ...Petitioner and Commissioner and Director of Agriculture and others ...Respondents Counsel for the petitioner: 1. Sujatha Kurapati Counsel for the respondents: 1. Mallampalli Srinivas (Central Govt. Counsel) 2. Thoom Srinivas 3. S. Siva Kumari 4. G.P. for Agriculture (A.P.) The Court made the following: 2 W.P.No.22241 of 2015 ORDER: The writ petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India seeking the following relief: “…to grant appropriate relief in the nature of writ of mandamus declaring the action of the respondents Nos.1, 2 and 3 in not directing the respondents Nos.5, 6 and 7 to pay the compensation to the farmers in pursuance of the directions and decision taken by the respondent No.1 based on the proposal and recommendation made by the respondent No.2 to the respondent No.1 by proceedings Roc.No.D3/1811/2010, dated 22.09.2012 as well as allowing the respondents Nos.5, 6 and 7 continuing their business activities in the field of production of cotton seeds as well as selling the cotton seeds for commercial purpose is equally arbitrary, illegal, malafide violating Article 14, 19(1)(g) and 21 of the Constitution of India and issue consequential directions directing respondents Nos.1, 2 and 3 to take appropriate action regarding payment of compensation by the respondent No.5 to the farmers in pursuance of the decision and directions issued by the respondent No.1 based on the recommendations / proposals sent by the respondent No.2 to the respondent No.1 by proceedings Roc.No.D3/1811/2010, dated 22.09.2012 and also direct the respondents Nos.1 to 4 restraining the respondents Nos.5 to 7 as well as their other representatives from continuing their business activities regarding production of cotton seeds as well as selling the cotton seeds for commercial purpose till complying the directions given by the respondent No.1 regarding payment of compensation to the farmers in pursuance of the proposal / recommendations made by the respondent No.2 addressed to the respondent No.1 by proceedings Roc.No.D3/1811/2010, dated 22.09.2012 and pass.…” 3 W.P.No.22241 of 2015 2. The learned Assistant Government Pleader for Agriculture is present. 3. As there is no representation for the petitioner on 06.04.2026, the matter was adjourned to today under the caption “for dismissal”. Even today, there is no representation for the petitioner. 4. Hence, the writ petition is dismissed for default. No costs. Interim orders granted earlier, if any, shall stand vacated. Pending miscellaneous petitions, if any, shall stand closed. ________________________ JUSTICE B.S. BHANUMATHI Dated: 15.04.2026 NSM 4 W.P.No.22241 of 2015 36 The Honourable Ms. Justice B.S.Bhanumathi Writ Petition No:22241 of 2015 Dated: 15.04.2026 NSM