Research › Search › Judgment

High Court of Andhra Pradesh · body

2025 DAILYLAW 31714 (AP)

M/s Domestic Travels, Visakhapatnam, v. Union of India, ( East Coast Railway)

WP/4606/2013 · 2025-07-14

Gannamaneni Ramakrishna Prasad

body2025

Judgment text

Extracted from the PDF above. The PDF is authoritative.

APHC010457732013 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3328] TUESDAY, THE FIFTEENTH DAY OF JULY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE GANNAMANENI RAMAKRISHNA PRASAD WRIT PETITION NO: 4606/2013 Between: 1. M/S DOMESTIC TRAVELS, VISAKHAPATNAM,, REPRESENTED BY ITS PROPRIETOR SRI B SRINIVASARAO, S/O NAGABHUSHANAM, 45 YRS, D.NO.48-7-49, FLAT NO.2, LAKSHMI GAYATRI APARTMENTS, RAMA TALKIES MARKET LANE, SRINAGAR, VISAKHAPATNAM. ...PETITIONER AND 1. UNION OF INDIA EAST COAST RAILWAY, REPRESENTED BY ITS GENERAL MANAGER, BHUBANESWAR 2. THE EAST COAST RAILWAY, REPRESENTED BY ITS DIVISIONAL MANAGER, WALTAIR, VISAKHAPATNAM. 3. EAST COAST RAILWAY REPRESENTED BY ITS, SENIOR DIVISIONAL COMMERCIAL MANAGER, WALTAIR, VISAKHAPATNAM. ...RESPONDENT(S): Counsel for the Petitioner: 1. A SRINIVASA SARMA Counsel for the Respondent(S): 1. VENNA HEMANTH KUMAR(CENTRAL GOVERNMENT COUNSEL) 2. C V VINITHA REDDY The Court made the following: ORAL ORDER: This is the matter of the year 2013. When this Writ Petition was listed on 10.07.2025, there was no representation on behalf of the Petitioner. This Court had directed the matter to be listed today under the caption ‘For Dismissal’. Today also, there is no representation on behalf of the Petitioner. 2. Having regard to the fact that this matter has been pending on the file of this Court since 2013 and that there is no Interim Order, this Court is of the opinion that no useful purpose would be served by keeping this matter pending. 3. In this view of the matter, this Writ Petition is dismissed for Non- prosecution. No order as to costs. 4. However, if the Writ Petitioner is of the view that there is a cause which is required to be considered by this Court, the Writ Petitioner is granted twelve (12) weeks’ time to file a suitable Application for Restoration. 5. In view of the above direction, the Registry is directed to preserve this record for a period of twelve (12) weeks from today without destroying the record. The Registry would be entitled to destroy the record if this Court has not restored this Writ Petition any time after twelve weeks. 6. Interlocutory Applications, if any, stand closed in terms of this order. ______________________________________ GANNAMANENI RAMAKRISHNA PRASAD, J Dt: 15.07.2025 DSV 84 HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE GANNAMANENI RAMAKRISHNA PRASAD WRIT PETITION No.4606 of 2013 15.07.2025 DSV HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATHI MAIN CASE No.W.P.No.4606 of 2013 PROCEEDING SHEET Sl. No DATE ORDER Office Note 3. 15.07.2025 GRKP, J Writ Petition is dismissed for Non prosecution. (vide separate order) ___________ GRKP, J DSV