Sri Sripathi Sunil Barnabas v. The State of Andhra Pradesh
WP/10856/2019 · 2026-04-05
Sumathi Jagadam
body2019
DailyLaw.ai
[ 2019 DAILYLAW 503 (AP) · dailylaw.ai ]
DailyLaw.ai
[ 2019 DAILYLAW 503 (AP) · dailylaw.ai ]
Judgment text
Extracted from the PDF above. The PDF is authoritative.
APHC010243072019
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3459] MONDAY,THE SIXTH DAY OF APRIL TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY SIX PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SMT JUSTICE SUMATHI JAGADAM WRIT PETITION NO: 10856/2019 Between:
1. SRI SRIPATHI SUNIL BARNABAS, S/O S.V.PRATHAP AGE 46 YEARS, JUNIOR LECTURER, GOVERNMENT JUNIOR COLLEGE VEMULA KADAPA DISTRICT R/O D.NO.43/37 PRAKASH NAGAR, KADAPA
...PETITIONER AND
1. THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH, REPTD BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY DEPARTMENT OF REVENUE, SECRETARIAT BUILDINGS, VELAGAPUDI VILLAGE, AMARAVATHY MANDAL, GUNTUR DISTRICT
2. THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR, KADAPA
...RESPONDENT(S): Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed therewith, the High Court may be pleased toto issue an order direction or a writ of mandamus declaring the action of the respondent no.2 in not giving any information to the writ petitioner in pursuance of the legal notice dt.14-4-2019 issued by the writ petitioner to the 2nd respondent as illegal arbitrary and unconstitutional and consequently direct the 2nd respondent to provide the required information to the writ petitioner as required by the writ petitioner stated in his legal notice dt. 14-4- 2019 and to pass IA NO: 1 OF 2019
2
Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased to direct the 2nd respondent to provide the required information to the writ petitioner as required by the writ petitioner stated in his legal notice dt. 14- 4¬2019 and to pass such other order or orders may deem fit and proper in the circumstances of the case. Counsel for the Petitioner:
1. S S BHATT Counsel for the Respondent(S):
1. GP FOR REVENUE (AP)
3
The Court made the following ORDER:
Ms.Lakshmi Nandini, learned counsel representing learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the cause in the writ petition does not survive for adjudication.
Since the cause in the Writ Petition does not survive for adjudication, the Writ Petition is dismissed as infructuous. No order as to costs.
As a sequel, miscellaneous applications pending, if any, shall stand closed. __________________________ JUSTICE SUMATHI JAGADAM Date: 06.04.2026 rsd
4
32 THE HONOURABLE SMT JUSTICE SUMATHI JAGADAM
WRIT PETITION NO: 10856/2019
Date: 06.04.2026 rsd