Malle Pedda Gangadhar, v. Government of Andhra Pradesh,
WP/22938/2017 · 2025-02-25
K Manmadha Rao
body2025
DailyLaw.ai
[ 2025 DAILYLAW 34484 (AP) · dailylaw.ai ]
DailyLaw.ai
[ 2025 DAILYLAW 34484 (AP) · dailylaw.ai ]
Judgment text
Extracted from the PDF above. The PDF is authoritative.
APHC010532712017
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3310] TUESDAY ,THE TWENTY FIFTH DAY OF FEBRUARY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE DR JUSTICE K MANMADHA RAO WRIT PETITION NO: 22938/2017 Between: Malle Pedda Gangadhar, ...PETITIONER AND Government Of Andhra Pradesh and Others ...RESPONDENT(S) Counsel for the Petitioner:
1. N SHOBA Counsel for the Respondent(S):
1. GP FOR MINES AND GEOLOGY (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 writ, order or direction more particularly one in the nature of WRIT OF MANDAMUS declaring the proceedings of Respondent No.2 in D.Dis.No.27634/R5-2/2015, dated 16.11.2016 in declaring the PL application dated 09.10.2015 for Barytes in over an extent of 22.35 hectares in Sy.No.721/4 of Medipentla village, Vemula Mandal, Kadapa district as ineligible as per Sec 10 A (1) of Mines and Minerals Development and Regulation Amendment Act, 2015 as arbitrary, illegal, unjust ,unconstitutional and
in violation of principles of natural justice and the provisions of Mines and Minerals Development and Regulation Act, 1957 Mineral Concession Rules, 1960 and A P Minor Mineral Concession Rules, 1966 and pass...”
2. On hearing, learned counsel for the petitioner appears online through video conferencing and submits that she has given No-Objection Vakalat to the petitioner long back.
3. Though the learned counsel for the petitioner on record has given No-Objection Vakalat to the petitioner long back, till date the petitioner has not taken any steps either to engage a new counsel or to appear in person to prosecute the case. It seems that the petitioner has no interest in prosecuting the case.
4. Therefore, the Writ Petition is dismissed as 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 : 25.02.2025 TM