Research › Search › Judgment

High Court of Andhra Pradesh · body

2025 DAILYLAW 20971 (AP)

St. Ann's Educational Society, v. Council for Advancement of People's Action and Rural

WP/39208/2012 · 2025-08-11

Sumathi Jagadam

body2025

Judgment text

Extracted from the PDF above. The PDF is authoritative.

APHC010296482012 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH (Special Original Jurisdiction) TUESDAY,THE TWELFTH DAY OF AUGUST TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE THE HONOURABLE SMT JUSTICE SUMATHI JAGADAM WRIT PETITION NO: 39208/2012 Between: 1. ST.ANN'S EDUCATIONAL SOCIETY,, 10 KURNOOL, REP.BY ITS PRESIDENT N.ASHOK KUMAR. 1. COUNCIL FOR ADVANCEMENT OF PEOPLES ACTION AND RURAL, TECHNOLOGY (CAPART) (UNDER THE AEGIS OF MINISTRY OF RURAL DEVELOPMENT, GOVERNMENT OF INDIA), INDIA HABITAT CENTRE, ZONE-5A, (CORE DELHI 110003, REP.BY ITS DIRECTOR GENERAL. 2. THE CHIEF VIGILANCE OFFICER, COUNCIL FOR ADVANCEMENT OF PEOPLE'S ACTION AND RURAL TECHNOLOGY, (UNDER THE AEGIS OF MINISTRY OF RURAL DEVELOPMENT, GOVERNMENT OF INDIA) INDIA HABITAT CENTRE, ZONE FLOOR, LODHI ROAD, NEW DELHI. 3. THE SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE, KURNOOL, KURNOOL DISTRICT. 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 to issue an appropriate writ, order or direction more particularly one in the nature of writ of mandamus declaring the action of the respondent authorities 1 and 2 in pressurizing the petitioner for production of (1) File No. 601-35/91-RLEGP, dated 13.6.1993 and (2) File No. 1301 7.12.1994, pertaining to its office, after 19 years by threatening that an FIR would be lodged through the 3rd respondent against the petitioner for not cooperating in reconstituting the above files as IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) TUESDAY,THE TWELFTH DAY OF AUGUST TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SMT JUSTICE SUMATHI JAGADAM WRIT PETITION NO: 39208/2012 ST.ANN'S EDUCATIONAL SOCIETY,, 10-45, KRISHNA NAGAR, KURNOOL, REP.BY ITS PRESIDENT N.ASHOK KUMAR. ...PETITIONER AND COUNCIL FOR ADVANCEMENT OF PEOPLES ACTION AND RURAL, TECHNOLOGY (CAPART) (UNDER THE AEGIS OF MINISTRY OF RURAL DEVELOPMENT, GOVERNMENT OF INDIA), INDIA HABITAT 5A, (CORE-C), 2ND FLOOR, LODHI ROAD, NEW DELHI 110003, REP.BY ITS DIRECTOR GENERAL. THE CHIEF VIGILANCE OFFICER, COUNCIL FOR ADVANCEMENT OF PEOPLE'S ACTION AND RURAL TECHNOLOGY, (UNDER THE AEGIS OF MINISTRY OF RURAL DEVELOPMENT, GOVERNMENT OF INDIA) INDIA HABITAT CENTRE, ZONE-5A, (CORE FLOOR, LODHI ROAD, NEW DELHI. THE SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE, KURNOOL, KURNOOL ...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 to issue an appropriate writ, order or direction more particularly one in mandamus declaring the action of the respondent authorities 1 and 2 in pressurizing the petitioner for production of (1) File No. RLEGP, dated 13.6.1993 and (2) File No. 1301-10/94-95 TM, dated 7.12.1994, pertaining to its office, after 19 years of completion of the projects, by threatening that an FIR would be lodged through the 3rd respondent against the petitioner for not cooperating in reconstituting the above files as IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH [3459] THE HONOURABLE SMT JUSTICE SUMATHI JAGADAM 45, KRISHNA NAGAR, ...PETITIONER COUNCIL FOR ADVANCEMENT OF PEOPLES ACTION AND RURAL, TECHNOLOGY (CAPART) (UNDER THE AEGIS OF MINISTRY OF RURAL DEVELOPMENT, GOVERNMENT OF INDIA), INDIA HABITAT C), 2ND FLOOR, LODHI ROAD, NEW THE CHIEF VIGILANCE OFFICER, COUNCIL FOR ADVANCEMENT OF PEOPLE'S ACTION AND RURAL TECHNOLOGY, (UNDER THE AEGIS OF MINISTRY OF RURAL DEVELOPMENT, GOVERNMENT 5A, (CORE-C), 2ND THE SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE, KURNOOL, KURNOOL ...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 to issue an appropriate writ, order or direction more particularly one in mandamus declaring the action of the respondent authorities 1 and 2 in pressurizing the petitioner for production of (1) File No. 95 TM, dated of completion of the projects, by threatening that an FIR would be lodged through the 3rd respondent against the petitioner for not cooperating in reconstituting the above files as 2 illegal, arbitrary and violation of Articles 14; 19(1)(g) and 21 of the Constitution of India and consequently direct the respondents to drop the further proceedings against the petitioners pertaining to (1) File No. 601-35/91- RLEGP, dated 13.6.1993 and (2) File No. 1301-10/94-95 TM, dated 7.12.1994 of the 1st respondent office according to the decision taken in its 56th meeting dated 20.1.2012 treating Ras work "closed", and pass IA NO: 1 OF 2012(WPMP 49784 OF 2012 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 direct the respondents not to take any coercive steps against the petitioner, with regard to the (1) File No. 601-35/91-RLEGP, dated 13.6.1993 and (2) File No. 1301-10/94-95 TM, dated 7.12.1994 of the is respondent's office, pending disposal of the above writ petition, and pass IA NO: 4 OF 2012(WPMP 211792 OF 2012 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 IA NO: 1 OF 2013(WPMP 1049 OF 2013 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 IA NO: 1 OF 2015(WPMP 192857 OF 2015 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 Counsel for the Petitioner: 1. MANJUNATH ALLUR Counsel for the Respondent(S): 1. NAMAVARAPU R RAO(CENTRAL GOVT COUNSEL) 2. GP FOR HOME 3. B SUDHAKAR REDDY AND NEERAJA REDDY The Court made the following: 3 The Court made the following ORDER: Sri Ugranarasimha, the learned counsel representing the petitioner submits that the cause in the Writ Petition does not survive. Recording the submission of learned counsel for the petitioner, the Writ Petition is dismissed as infructuous. No order as to costs. As a sequel, miscellaneous pending applications, if any, shall stand closed. ___________________________ JUSTICE SUMATHI JAGADAM Date: 12.08.2025 GRL 4 197 THE HONOURABLE SMT JUSTICE SUMATHI JAGADAM WRIT PETITION NO: 39208 of 2012 Date: 12.08.2025 GRL