Research › Search › Judgment

High Court of Andhra Pradesh · body

2025 DAILYLAW 23879 (AP)

Vetukuri Seetharama Raju, v. The State of Andhra Pradesh,

WP/15600/2018 · 2025-01-02

K Manmadha Rao

body2025

Judgment text

Extracted from the PDF above. The PDF is authoritative.

APHC010337582018 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3310] THURSDAY ,THE SECOND DAY OF JANUARY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE DR JUSTICE K MANMADHA RAO WRIT PETITION NO: 15600/2018 Between: Vetukuri Seetharama Raju, ...PETITIONER AND The State Of Andhra Pradesh and Others ...RESPONDENT(S) Counsel for the Petitioner: 1. M PHANI KUMAR Counsel for the Respondent(S): 1. GP FOR MEDICAL HEALTH FW(AP) 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 a writ, order or direction one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus by declaring the proceedings of the 2nd respondent in proceedings No.REV-CSECOLAO(DIS)/2/2018-SA-C1-KCO dated 14.04 2018 by ordering the petitioner for externment from the Krishna District for a period of 6 months under section 3(1) (a) of the Andhra Pradesh Prevention of Antisocial and Hazaradus Activities Act, 1980 without issuing any notice to the petitioner as illegal, arbitrary, violative of the principles of natural justice and contrary to Article 21 of Constitution of India and contrary to the section 32 of Andhra Pradesh Prevention of Antisocial and Hazaradus Activities Act, 1980 and consequently suspend the proceedings of the 2nd respondent dated 14.04.2018 in Proceedings No.REV-CSECOLAO(DIS)/2/2018-SA-C1- KCO pending disposal of the above writ petition and pass.” 2. On an earlier occasion, i.e., on 09.07.2024, there was no representation on behalf of the petitioner and the matter was directed to be listed on 16.07.2024 for hearing as a last chance. 3. Today, when the matter is taken up for hearing, there is no representation for the petitioner. It seems that the petitioner has no interest in prosecuting this Writ Petition. 4. Accordingly, this Writ Petition is dismissed for non prosecution. There shall be no order as to costs. As a sequel, miscellaneous applications pending, if any, shall stand closed. _________________________ DR. K. MANMADHA RAO, J. Dated : 02.01.2025 TM