Research › Search › Judgment

High Court of Andhra Pradesh · body

2025 DAILYLAW 30641 (AP)

Pithani Narasimha Murthy, v. The State of Andhra Pradesh,

WP/21261/2019 · 2025-07-21

Venkata Jyothirmai Pratapa

body2025

Judgment text

Extracted from the PDF above. The PDF is authoritative.

APHC010442182019 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3396] TUESDAY, THE TWENTY SECOND DAY OF JULY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE DR. JUSTICE VENKATA JYOTHIRMAI PRATAPA WRIT PETITION NO: 21261/2019 Between: PITHANI NARASIMHA MURTHY, S/O. NAGOOR, AGED ABOUT ABOUT 39 YEARS, OCC. CULTIVATION, R/O. D.NO.13-53, BALAYOGI CANAL ROAD, MUMMIDIVARAM VILLAGE AND MANDAL, EAST GODAVARI DISTRICT. ...PETITIONER AND 1. THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH, REP. BY ITS SECRETARY, HOME DEPARTMENT, SECRETARIAT, AMARAVATHI, GUNTUR DISTRICT. 2. THE SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE, EAST GODAVARI DISTRICT. ANDHRA PRADESH. 3. THE POLICE CIRCLE INSPECTOR, MUMMIDIVARAM, EAST GODAVARI DISTRICT 4. GUTHULA ADINARAYANA, S/O. NARAYANA, AGED ABOUT 72 YEARS, OCC. CULTIVATION, RIO. D.NO.2-70, KRAPA CHINTALAPUDI, MUMMIDIVARAM MANDAL, EAST GODAVARI DISTRICT. ...RESPONDENT(S): Counsel for the Petitioner: 1. MARRI VENKATA RAMANA Counsel for the Respondent(S): 1. GP FOR HOME (AP) 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 action of the 3rd respondent in interfering in civil dispute between the petitioner and the respondent in A.T.C.No.2 of 2016 pending in the Court of 2 Tenancy Tribunal / Jr. Civil Judge Court, Mummidivaram as illegal, arbitrary, unreasonable and violative of Articles 14, 16 and 300-A of the Constitution of India and against the principles of natural justice.” 2. When the matter is taken up for hearing, Sri Marri Venkata Ramana, 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 Md.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:22.07.2025 Dinesh 3 HON’BLE DR. JUSTICE VENKATA JYOTHIRMAI PRATAPA W.P.No.21261 of 2019 Dt.22.07.2025 Dinesh