Research › Search › Judgment

High Court of Andhra Pradesh · body

2025 DAILYLAW 17773 (AP)

V.RAMATULASI, GUNTUR DISTRICT v. DISTRICT COLLECTOR, GUNTUR DISTRICT & 2 OTHERS

WP/17681/2007 · 2025-08-31

Ravi Cheemalapati

body2025

Judgment text

Extracted from the PDF above. The PDF is authoritative.

APHC010244362007 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3332] MONDAY,THE FIRST DAY OF SEPTEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE RAVI CHEEMALAPATI WRIT PETITION NO: 17681/2007 Between: 1. V.RAMATULASI, GUNTUR DISTRICT, W/O.SRINIVASA RAO R/O.MACHAVARAM VILLAGE & MANDAL GUNTUR DISTRICT ...PETITIONER AND 1. DISTRICT COLLECTOR GUNTUR DISTRICT 2 OTHERS, SELECTION COMMITTEE, GUNTUR DISTRICT 2. THE PROJECT DIRECTOR DISTRICT WOMEN CHILD DEVELOPMENT, PROJECT OFFICE, GUNTUR, GUNTUR DISTRICT 3. K SANTHIKUMARI, W/O.K.KOTESWARA RAO R/O.MACHAVARAM VILLAGE & MANDAL GUNTUR DISTRICT ...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 a writ of mandamus or any other appropriate writ or direction declaring the orders passed the 2nd respondent inNo.882/A1/2005 dated 25.5.2007 appointing the 3rd respondent as Anganwadi worker of Machavaram village as illegal, and arbitrary, and consequently direct the respondents 1 an 2 appoint the petitioner as Anganwadi worker of Machavaram village and pass IA NO: 1 OF 2007(WPMP 22676 OF 2007 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 stay the orders No.882/A1/2005 dated 25.5.2007 passed by the 2nd respondent pending disposal of the above Writ petition and pass Counsel for the Petitioner: 1. P GANGA RAMI REDDY Counsel for the Respondent(S): 1. GP FOR WOMEN DEV, CHILD WELFARE The Court made the following: ORDER: Learned counsel for the petitioner brought to the notice of this Court that the sole writ petitioner died and her legal representatives are not in touch with him. In view of the same, the Writ Petition is dismissed as abated. There shall be no order as to costs. As a sequel, miscellaneous applications, pending if any, shall stand closed. _____________________________ JUSTICE RAVI CHEEMALAPATI Date: 01st September, 2025 RKS