Research › Search › Judgment

High Court of Andhra Pradesh · body

2025 DAILYLAW 46735 (AP)

M. Sukumar v. The State of Andhra Pradesh

WP/15836/2016 · 2025-09-25

Maheswara Rao Kuncheam

Civil Appealbody2025

Judgment text

Extracted from the PDF above. The PDF is authoritative.

APHC010091532016 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3504] FRIDAY,THE TWENTY SIXTH DAY OF SEPTEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE MAHESWARA RAO KUNCHEAM WRIT PETITION NO: 15836/2016 Between: 1. M. SUKUMAR, S/O M. SUBBA RAO AGED ABOUT 27 YEARS, OCC: NIL, R/O D.NO. 2/5-41, GANDLAVADI, NAWABPET, NELLORE DIST. A.P. ...PETITIONER AND 1. THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH, REP BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY, IRRIGATION & C.A.D DEPARTMENT, SECRETARIAT, HYDERABAD. 2. THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR NELLORE DISTRICT NELLORE, - 3. THE SUPERINTENDENT ENGINEER, IRRIGATION DEPARTMENT, SOMASILA CIRCLE, SOMASILA PROJECT, NELLORE DISTRICT, A.P. ...RESPONDENT(S): Counsel for the Petitioner: 1. P RAVI KIRAN Counsel for the Respondent(S): 1. GP FOR IRRI AND CAD (AP) 2 The Court made the following ORDER: This Writ Petition, under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, is filed seeking the following relief: “….to issue any writ, order or direction more particularly one in the nature of writ of mandamus declaring the action of the respondents in not providing the petitioner with suitable job in Somasila project by ignoring provisions of G.O. Ms. No. 247 Irrigation & CAD Dept, dated 29-12-2008 as illegal and arbitrary and consequently direct the respondents to provide the job to the petitioner forthwith….” 2. On 24.09.2025 there was no representation for the petitioner. Hence, the matter was directed to be listed on 25.09.2025 under the caption „for dismissal‟. On 25.09.2025, there was no representation for the petitioner. Hence, the matter was directed to be listed today under the same caption of dismissal. 3. Today also, despite the matter being listed under the caption „for dismissal‟, none appeared for the petitioner. From this, it appears that the petitioner is not interested in pursuing the matter. 4. Accordingly, the Writ Petition is dismissed for non-prosecution. There shall be no order as to costs. As a sequel, all pending applications shall stand closed. _______________________________ JUSTICE MAHESWARA RAO KUNCHEAM Date: 26.09.2025 Ivd 3 THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE MAHESWARA RAO KUNCHEAM WRIT PETITION No.15836 of 2016 Date: 26.09.2025 Ivd