Research › Search › Judgment

High Court of Andhra Pradesh · body

2025 DAILYLAW 24034 (AP)

N.B.Nagesh, v. State of Andhra Pradesh,

WP/16247/2019 · 2025-04-02

Venkata Jyothirmai Pratapa

body2025

Judgment text

Extracted from the PDF above. The PDF is authoritative.

1 APHC010340152019 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3396] WEDNESDAY ,THE SECOND DAY OF APRIL TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE DR JUSTICE VENKATA JYOTHIRMAI PRATAPA WRIT PETITION NO: 16247/2019 Between: N.b.nagesh, and Others ...PETITIONER(S) AND State Of Andhra Pradesh and Others ...RESPONDENT(S) Counsel for the Petitioner(S): 1. P NARASIMHULU Counsel for the Respondent(S): 1. GP FOR PANCHAYAT RAJ RURAL DEV (AP) 2. V VINOD K REDDY (SC FOR ZP MPDO GP) The Court made the following: 2 THE HONOURABLE DR JUSTICE VENKATA JYOTHIRMAI PRATAPA WRIT PETITION NO: 16247 of 2019 ORDER: This Writ Petition is filed under Article 226 of Constitution of India with the following prayer for: “…to issue a writ order or direction more particularly one in the nature of mandamus declaring the action of the respondents 4 to 10 in obstructing the petitioners from attending to their duties as Senior Mates without issuing any notice or passing orders as illegal, arbitrary and violation of Articles 14, 16 and 21 of the Constitution of India and violation of principles of natural justice and consequently direct the respondents 4 to 10 not to interfere with the petitioners duties as Senior Mates and pass…” 2. Heard Sri P. Narasimhulu, learned Counsel for the Petitioners and Sri V.Vinod K Reddy learned Standing Counsel for the respondents. 3. Learned Standing Counsel for the respondents would submit that no further orders are required in this matter, cause of action does not survive since the petitioner Nos. 1 to 3 are continuing in the post. Petitioner No.4 was terminated. 4. As can be seen from the proceeding sheet dated 19.03.2025, the Writ Petition with regard to the petitioner Nos. 1 & 3 is dismissed as withdrawn. 5. Learned Counsel for the petitioners would submit that recording the same, the petition may be disposed of. 6. In the light of the submissions made, the Writ Petition is disposed of. No order as to costs. Pending applications, if any, shall stand closed. ____________________________________ Dr. VENKATA JYOTHIRMAI PRATAPA, J Date: 02.04.2025 UPS 3 34 HON’BLE DR. JUSTICE VENKATA JYOTHIRMAI PRATAPA W.P.No.16247 of 2019 Dated.02.04.2025 UPS