Research › Search › Judgment

High Court of Andhra Pradesh · body

2025 DAILYLAW 37386 (AP)

KARRI KRISHNA, E.G. DIST. v. MANDAL PARISHAD DEVELOPMENT OFFFICER & 2 OTHERS

WP/12205/2011 · 2025-07-03

Tarlada Rajasekhar Rao

body2025

Judgment text

Extracted from the PDF above. The PDF is authoritative.

APHC010635012011 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3330] FRIDAY, THE FOURTH DAY OF JULY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE TARLADA RAJASEKHAR RAO WRIT PETITION NO: 12205/2011 Between: 1. KARRI KRISHNA, E.G. DIST., S/O AYYANNA FIELD ASSISTANT O/O MPDO, YELESWARAM (M) R/O PEDDANAPALLI VILLAGE EAST GODAVARI DISTRICT. ...PETITIONER AND 1. MANDAL PARISHAD DEVELOPMENT OFFICER, YELESWARAM MANDAL, E.G. DISTRICT. 2. PROJECT DIRECTOR, DWMA, KAKINADA, EAST GODAVARI DISTRICT. 3. COMMISSIONER, DEPARTMENT RURAL DEVELOPMENT, HYDERABAD ...RESPONDENT(S) Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed therewith, the High Court may be pleased to issue a writ order or direction more particularly one in the nature of writ of Mandamus declaring the action of the 2nd respondent in issuing vide Proceedings RC No. E/69/EGS/DWMA/07 dt. 25-8-2008 in suspending me and not reinstating me in to service even after 3 years as unreasonable unjust and consequently set aside the same and reinstate the petitioner. IA NO: 1 OF 2011(WPMP 14905 OF 2011 Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased to suspend the operation of the impugned Order of the2nd respondent vide Proceedings No. RC.No. E/69/EGS/DWMA/07 dt. 25-8-2008 pending disposal of the above writ petition. Counsel for the Petitioner: 1. K V RAJASREE Counsel for the Respondent(S): 1. GP FOR PANCHAYAT RAJ & RURAL DEV The Court made the following: 2 THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE TARLADA RAJASEKHAR RAO WRIT PETITION NO. 12205 of 2011 ORDER: Despite the matter listed under the caption ‘for dismissal’, there is no representation for the petitioner. It evinces that the petitioner has no interest in prosecuting his case. Therefore, the Writ Petition is dismissed for non-prosecution. There shall be no order as to costs. As a sequel thereto, miscellaneous Petitions pending, if any, shall stand closed. ___________________________________ JUSTICE TARLADA RAJASEKHAR RAO Date : 04.07.2025 SPP 3 THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE TARLADA RAJASEKHAR RAO Writ Petition No:12205 of 2011 Date : 04.07.2025 SPP