Research › Search › Judgment

High Court of Andhra Pradesh · body

2025 DAILYLAW 26127 (AP)

Gudimetla Suguna, v. The State of Andhra Pradesh,

WP/24617/2020 · 2025-08-27

Venkata Jyothirmai Pratapa

body2025

Judgment text

Extracted from the PDF above. The PDF is authoritative.

APHC010369692020 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3396] THURSDAY, THE TWENTY EIGHTH DAY OF AUGUST TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE DR. JUSTICE VENKATA JYOTHIRMAI PRATAPA WRIT PETITION NO: 24617/2020 Between: 1. GUDIMETLA SUGUNA,, W/O GANDHI, AGED ABOUT 45 YEARS, OCC- HOUSE-WIFE, RIO. DOOR NO.25-16-1 16/B, LAKSHMI NARAYANAPURAM, CHUTTUGUNTA, GUNTUR. ...PETITIONER AND 1. THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH, REP.BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY, DEPARTMENT OF HOME, SECRETARIAT BUILDINGS, VELAGAPUDI, GUNTUR DISTRICT. 2. THE INSPECTOR GENERAL OF POLICE, GUNTUR RANGE, GUNTUR. 3. THE SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE, GUNTUR URBAN, GUNTUR, GUNTUR DISTRICT. 4. THE STATION HOUSE OFFICER, NAGARAMPALEM POLICE STATION, NAGARAMPALEM, GUNTUR DISTRICT. ...RESPONDENT(S): Counsel for the Petitioner: 1. G KONDALA RAO Counsel for the Respondent(S): 1. GP FOR HOME The Court made the following: ORDER: This Writ Petition is filed under Article 226 of Constitution of India with the following prayer for: “.... a Writ of Mandamus, declaring the inaction of the 2nd respondent in taking action against the 4th respondent as per G.O.Ms. No. 288/2010 dated 06-11-2010 basing on representation given by the petitioner dated 18-11-2020 is as illegal, arbitrary, unjust and contrary to law and consequently direct the 2nd respondent to take action against the 4th respondent in the pursuance of the G.O.Ms. No. 288/2010, dated 06-11-2020.” 2 2. When the matter is taken up for hearing, Sri G.Kondala Rao, learned counsel for the Petitioner would submit that no further orders are required in this matter as the relief sought in this petition has become infructuous. 3. Sri V.Farooq, learned Assistant Government Pleader for Home, would submit that Court may pass appropriate orders. 4. Considering the submissions made, the Writ Petition is dismissed as the relief has become infructuous. There shall be no order as to costs. As a sequel thereto, miscellaneous petitions, if any, pending shall stand closed. ________________________________________ Dr.JUSTICE VENKATA JYOTHIRMAI PRATAPA Date:28.08.2025 Dinesh 3 HON’BLE DR. JUSTICE VENKATA JYOTHIRMAI PRATAPA W.P.No.24617 of 2020 Dt.28.08.2025 Dinesh