Research › Search › Judgment

High Court of Andhra Pradesh · body

2025 DAILYLAW 11251 (AP)

Dr. Kumpati Satyavardhan S/o K. Somaiah v. The Registrar, Acharya Nagarjuna University,

WP/22717/2006 · 2025-03-21

Ravi Cheemalapati

body2025

Judgment text

Extracted from the PDF above. The PDF is authoritative.

APHC010130232006 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH (Special Original Jurisdiction) FRIDAY, THE TWENTY FIRST DAY OF MARCH TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE RAVI CHEEMALAPATI WRIT PETITION NO: Between: Dr. Kumpati Satyavardhan S/o K. Somaiah The Registrar, Acharya Nagarjuna University and others Counsel for the Petitioner: 1. SATISH DESHPANDEY Counsel for the Respondent(S): 1. M PRATAP SINGH 2. KAMALAKARA RAO BATHINA 3. YELLA REDDY RAJANALA (SC FOR ANGRAU) 4. M.CHALAPATHI SC For Nagarjuna University 5. DEEPAK BHATTACHARJEE The Court made the following order: Though the matter is listed today under the caption ‘For Dismissal’, there is no representation on behalf of the petitioner. On earlier occasions also i.e., on 20.02.2025 and 07.03 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) FRIDAY, THE TWENTY FIRST DAY OF MARCH TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE RAVI CHEEMALAPATI WRIT PETITION NO: 22717/2006 Dr. Kumpati Satyavardhan S/o K. Somaiah ...PETITIONER AND The Registrar, Acharya Nagarjuna University and others ...RESPONDENT(S) Counsel for the Petitioner: SATISH DESHPANDEY Counsel for the Respondent(S): KAMALAKARA RAO BATHINA YELLA REDDY RAJANALA (SC FOR ANGRAU) M.CHALAPATHI SC For Nagarjuna University DEEPAK BHATTACHARJEE The Court made the following order: Though the matter is listed today under the caption ‘For Dismissal’, there is no representation on behalf of the petitioner. On earlier occasions also 07.03.2025, there was no representation on behalf of IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH [3332] THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE RAVI CHEEMALAPATI ...PETITIONER ...RESPONDENT(S) Though the matter is listed today under the caption ‘For Dismissal’, there is no representation on behalf of the petitioner. On earlier occasions also , there was no representation on behalf of the petitioner. It shows that the petitioner is not interested in prosecuting his case. Hence, the Writ Petition is dismissed for non-prosecution. There shall be no order as to costs. As a sequel, all the pending miscellaneous applications are closed. ___________________________ JUSTICE RAVI CHEEMALAPATI Date: 21.03.2025 MP 164 THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE RAVI CHEEMALAPATI WRIT PETITION NO:22717 of 2006 Date: 21.03.2025 MP