D Venkata Lakshmi v. The Superintending Engineer 400 KV Construction Circle
WP/32531/2016 · 2025-10-30
Gannamaneni Ramakrishna Prasad
body2025
DailyLaw.ai
[ 2025 DAILYLAW 40591 (AP) · dailylaw.ai ]
DailyLaw.ai
[ 2025 DAILYLAW 40591 (AP) · dailylaw.ai ]
Judgment text
Extracted from the PDF above. The PDF is authoritative.
APHC010749822016
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction)
FRIDAY,THE THIRTY FIRST DAY OF OCTOBER TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE GANNAMANENI RAMAKRISHNA PRASAD WRIT PETITION NO: 32531 OF 2016 Between:
1. D Venkata Lakshmi, W/o D Gangadhar Aged about 36 years, Oce: Cultivation R/o D. No 5-121, Ramalayam Nemama Kakinada Rural Mandal East Godavari District ...Petitioner AND
1. The Superintending Engineer 400 KV Construction Circle, AP Transco Visakhapatnam
2. The Executive Engineer, 400 KV Construction Circle AP Transco Rajamahendravaram East Godavari District
3. The Assistant Executive Engineer Construction, Circle- SS Sub Division AP Transco, Bommuru Rajamahendravaram Rural Mandal East Godavari District ...Respondents Counsel for the Petitioner: BS KARTIK & PRASAD ESR Counsel for the Respondents: ANUP KOUSHIK KARAVADI(SC FOR APTRANSCO) Counsel for the Respondents:N SIVA REDDY(SC FOR APTRANSCO)
2
The Court made the following ORAL ORDER:
None present for the Writ Petitioner.
2. Heard Sri Tallapragada Sriram, learned Junior Standing Counsel for APTRANSCO appearing for Respondent Nos.1,2 & 3.
3. The present Writ Petition is filed challenging the Rejection Order dated 09.09.2016 passed by the Assistant Executive Engineer. The Docket Sheet would indicate that the matter was listed only once i.e., on 26.09.2016, wherein this Court has not even issued a notice to the parties.
4. Heard Sri Tallapragada Sriram, learned Junior Standing Counsel for APTRANSCO appearing for Respondent Nos.1, 2 & 3. He would submit that the power lines have already been laid after rejecting the objections of the Writ Petitioner, and therefore, this Writ Petition has become infructuous. Having noted the same, this Court is also of the same view that no cause survives. Accordingly, this Writ Petition is disposed of as having become infructuous. No Order as to Costs.
5. Interlocutory Applications, if any, stand closed in terms of this order.
______________________________________ GANNAMANENI RAMAKRISHNA PRASAD, J Dt: 31.10.2025 JKS
3
52
HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE GANNAMANENI RAMAKRISHNA PRASAD
WRIT PETITION No. 32531 OF 2016
31.10.2025
JKS