Research › Search › Judgment

High Court of Andhra Pradesh · body

2025 DAILYLAW 23418 (AP)

V.Mrityunjaya Sarma, S/o, V.V.S. Murthy v. APSRTC REP. by its

WP/34078/2012 · 2025-03-13

K Manmadha Rao

body2025

Judgment text

Extracted from the PDF above. The PDF is authoritative.

APHC010330092012 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3310] THURSDAY ,THE THIRTEENTH DAY OF MARCH TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE DR JUSTICE K MANMADHA RAO WRIT PETITION NO: 34078/2012 Between: V.mrityunjaya Sarma, S/o, V.v.s. Murthy ...PETITIONER AND Apsrtc Rep By Its and Others ...RESPONDENT(S) Counsel for the Petitioner: 1. VENKATA RAMAIAH KARUMURI Counsel for the Respondent(S): 1. K SATYANARAYAN MURTHY(SC FOR APSRTC) 2. VENKATESWARLU SANISETTY The Court made the following Order: The Writ Petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, seeking the following relief: “…..to issue appropriate writ, order or direction especially in the nature of writ of Mandamus declaring the impugned proceedings No.Ef/606(54)2012-PD, dated 20.9.2012 as being illegal, without jurisdiction and violative of Articles 14 and16 of Constitution of India and quash the same….” 2 2. This Court, vide order, dated 06.03.2025 has passed the following docket order: “On 24.02.2025 the matter was directed to be listed under the caption for dismissal. But, due to change of roster the matter was reopened. Today also none appears for the petitioner. Post on 13.03.2025 as a last chance for hearing. No further time will be granted. Office is directed to print the name of Mr Venkateswarlu Sanisetty, learned counsel for respondents in the cause list.” 3. Although this matter was posted with the condition that “no further time will be granted”, when the matter was called for hearing today, none appeared on behalf of the petitioner either personally or through advocate. It seems that the petitioner is not interested to prosecute the case. 4. Mr.Sanisetty Venkateswarlu, learned counsel for the respondents, is present. 5. Therefore, the Writ Petition is dismissed for non-prosecution. There shall be no order as to costs. 6. As a sequel thereto, the miscellaneous petitions, if any, pending in this writ petition shall stand dismissed. ________________________ DR. K. MANMADHA RAO, J BMS