Research › Search › Judgment

High Court of Andhra Pradesh · body

2025 DAILYLAW 39951 (AP)

M. VENUGOPALA RAO v. SECY., LEGISLATIVE AFFAIRS & 3 ORS.

WP/23382/2017 · 2025-10-30

Maheswara Rao Kuncheam

body2025

Judgment text

Extracted from the PDF above. The PDF is authoritative.

1 APHC010049152017 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3504] FRIDAY, THE THIRTY FIRST DAY OF OCTOBER TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE MAHESWARA RAO KUNCHEAM WRIT PETITION NO: 23382/2017 Between: M. Venugopala Rao ...PETITIONER AND Secy Legislative Affairs 3 Ors and Others ...RESPONDENT(S) Counsel for the Petitioner: 1. V V N NARASIMHAM Counsel for the Respondent(S): 1. V HIMABINDU 2. GP FOR HOME (AP) 3. GP FOR LAW & LEGISLATIVE AFFAIRS (AP) The Court Made the Following Order:- This Writ Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India is filed for the following relief: “to issue a writ order or direction more particularly one in the nature of writ of mandamus declaring the action of the respondents in not considering the petitioner's candidature in the panel for the post of Public Prosecutor in the Court of 2 District & Sessions Judge, Visakhapatnam and including the names of ineligible persons in the said panel as arbitrary, illegal, improper and contrary to Section 24 of Cr.P.C., and Rules framed under G.o.Ms.No. 187 Law (L) Department dated 06-12- 2000 and consequently direct the respondents to consider his candidature along with others for including the same in the panel for the appointment of Pubic Prosecutor in the Court of District and Sessions Judge, Visakhapatnam and pass such other order or orders as this Hon'ble Court may deem fit....” 2. Today, when the matter is taken up for hearing, Sri K.Manideep, learned counsel representing Sri V.V.N.Narasimham, learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that in view of the subsequent events taken place in the lis, the cause in the Writ Petition does not survive for further adjudication and the Writ Petition has become infructuous. 3. Recording the submissions made by the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner, the Writ Petition is dismissed as infructuous. There shall be no orders as to costs. As a sequel thereto, the miscellaneous petitions, if any, pending in this Writ Petition shall stand closed. _____________________________ MAHESWARA RAO KUNCHEAM,J 31.10.2025. Asr 3 THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE MAHESWARA RAO KUNCHEAM WRIT PETITION NO.23382 of 2017 31.10.2025 Asr