A.Siva Shanker Reddy v. The State of Andhra Pradesh, rep. by its Principal
WP/4136/2016 · 2025-08-31
B S Bhanumathi
body2025
DailyLaw.ai
[ 2025 DAILYLAW 22408 (AP) · dailylaw.ai ]
DailyLaw.ai
[ 2025 DAILYLAW 22408 (AP) · dailylaw.ai ]
Judgment text
Extracted from the PDF above. The PDF is authoritative.
APHC010315952016
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3311] Monday, The First day of September, Two Thousand and Twenty Five Present The Honourable Ms. Justice B.S.Bhanumathi Writ Petition No: 4136 of 2016 Between: A.Siva Shanker Reddy and others ...Petitioners and The State of Andhra Pradesh and others ...Respondents Counsel for the petitioners:
1. J. Janakirami Reddy Counsel for the respondents:
1. G.P. for Co-operation (A.P.)
2. G. Anand Kumar
3. P. Mohan Rao
4. G.P. for Agriculture (A.P.)
5. Botla Venkateswara Rao The Court made the following:
2 W.P.No.4136 of 2016 ORDER:
This writ petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India seeking the following relief:
“...to issue an appropriate writ, order or direction, more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus, declaring the inaction of the respondent Nos.3 and 4 herein in not settling the claims pertaining to the Crop Insurance for the Rabi Season 2012-2013 relating to the petitioners lands admeasuring Ac.4.00 cents in Sy.No.122/4 situated at Lopatnuthala Village and the lands in Sy.Nos.464, 289/1, 347, 522/1, 302, 470/2C, 266/3, 364/2 237, 493 and 472 admeasuring Ac.5.00, 5.00, 7.00, 5.00, 4.50, 5.00, 9.00, 5.00, 5.00, 7.00 and 4.50 cents situated at Lingala Village and Mandal, Y.S.R. Kadapa District and total extent is Ac.66.00 cents, even after receipt of claims through the respondent No.7 followed by reminders to the respondent No.5 and 6 dt. 3.11.2015 and 20.12.2015, as being illegal, arbitrary, unconstitutional and against to the principles of natural justice and consequently direct the respondent Nos.3 and 4 herein to settle the claims pertaining to the petitioners along with interest at the rate of 24% p.a., and to grant....”
02. Sri M.Karthik, learned counsel representing the learned counsel for the petitioners represented that the relief sought in the writ petition has become infructuous and requested to dispose of the writ petition.
03. Accordingly, the writ petition is dismissed as infructuous. There shall be no order as to costs.
Pending miscellaneous applications, if any, shall stand closed.
___________________ ___ JUSTICE B.S. BHANUMATHI Date: 01.09.2025 NSM
3 W.P.No.4136 of 2016 136
The Honourable Ms. Justice B.S.Bhanumathi
Writ Petition No: 4136 of 2016
Date: 01.09.2025 NSM