Research › Search › Judgment

High Court of Andhra Pradesh · body

2025 DAILYLAW 38954 (AP)

WEST GODAVARI COOPERATIVE SUGARS LIMITED, v. COMMISSIONER & DIRECTOR OF SUGARS & CANE COMMISSIONER,

WP/18927/2002 · 2025-09-17

Ravi Cheemalapati

body2025

Judgment text

Extracted from the PDF above. The PDF is authoritative.

APHC010795482002 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3332] THURSDAY,THE EIGHTEENTH DAY OF SEPTEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE RAVI CHEEMALAPATI WRIT PETITION NO: 18927/2002 Between: 1. WEST GODAVARI COOPERATIVE SUGARS LIMITED,, REP.BY ITS PRESIDENT, BKHIMADOLE-534425, WEST GODAVARI DISTRICT. ...PETITIONER AND 1. COMMISSIONER DIRECTOR OF SUGARS CANE COMMISSIONER, Government of A.P., Chirag Ali Lane, Abids, Hyderabad. ...RESPONDENT 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 Common Cadre Regulation No.33 framed under Section 116-A of the A.P.Co-operative Societies Act, 1964 for the Cooperative Sugar factories and all orders, regulations, etc., made thereunder as illegal, ultravires the Act and also violative of Articles 14 and 19(1)(g) of the Constitution of India and pass such other order or orders as this Hon'ble Court may dem fit and proper in the circumstances of the case. IA NO: 1 OF 2002(WPMP 23775 OF 2002 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 Common Cadre Regulation No.33 so far as the Petitioner is concerned and such other order or orders as this Hon'ble Court may deem fit and proper in the circumstances of the case. Counsel for the Petitioner: 1. M V DURGA PRASAD Counsel for the Respondent: 1. GP FOR INDUSTRIES & COMMERCE The Court made the following order: Sri J.Veera Raghava, learned counsel representing learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that the cause in this writ petition no longer survives and this writ petition became infructuous and hence prayed to dismiss the writ petition. 2. In view of the above submission, this writ petition is dismissed as infructuous. There shall be no order as to costs. Pending miscellaneous petitions, if any, shall stand closed. ________________________ JUSTICE RAVI CHEEMALAPATI BRS