Research › Search › Judgment

High Court of Andhra Pradesh · body

2025 DAILYLAW 16982 (AP)

M.Hare Rama Krishna Prasad, v. State of Andhra Pradesh,

WP/10181/2016 · 2025-02-17

K Manmadha Rao

body2025

Judgment text

Extracted from the PDF above. The PDF is authoritative.

APHC010229522016 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3310] MONDAY, THE SEVENTEENTH DAY OF FEBRUARY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE DR JUSTICE K MANMADHA RAO WRIT PETITION NO: 10181/2016 Between: M.hare Rama Krishna Prasad, ...PETITIONER AND State Of Andhra Pradesh and Others ...RESPONDENT(S) Counsel for the Petitioner: 1. V S R ANJANEYALU Counsel for the Respondent(S): 1. GP FOR ENDOWMENTS (AP) 2. ELEVATED AS JUDGE The Court made the following order: This Writ Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India is filed for the following relief:- “to issue a writ, order or direction more particularly one in the nature of WRIT OF Mandamus declaring the proceedings in Rc No B4 / 2190/ 20161 and Rc No B4/ 2190 /20162 dated 17 3 2016 issued by the respondent No 3 as illegal 2 and violative of Article 14 of the Constitution of India besides being in violation of the of the A P Act 30/1987 and the Rules framed thereunder on the subject and violative of Doctrine of principles of natural justice and to pass” 2. Heard P.Gagan Karthik, learned counsel appearing on behalf of learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Government Pleader for Endowments appearing for Respondent Nos.1 to 5. 3. On 21.04.2014, this Court while issuing Rule Nisi has passed the following interim order:- “ … However, the suspension of the operation of impugned order does not preclude the respondent authorities to take steps if the situation warrants to constitute the Trust Board, strictly following the procedure contemplated under law. Notice”. 4. The present Writ Petition is of the year 2016. The period of appointment under challenge, relates to 2016-2018. Even after lapse of eight (08) years that too after expiry of the period of appointment, there is no purpose in keeping the Writ Petition pending for further adjudication. Therefore, nothing survives in 3 the present Writ Petition for further adjudication and hence, the same is liable to be closed. 5. Accordingly, this Writ Petition is closed. There shall be no order as to costs. As a sequel, interlocutory applications pending, if any, shall stand closed. ________________________ DR. K. MANMADHA RAO, J Dated: 17.02.2025 PSA 4 THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE DR. K. MANMADHA RAO WRIT PETITION NO: 10181 of 2016 Date: 17.02.2025 PSA