Boddapati Venkata Ramana Murthy Naidu, v. Union of India
WP/26717/2015 · 2025-09-23
Sumathi Jagadam
body2025
DailyLaw.ai
[ 2025 DAILYLAW 47372 (AP) · dailylaw.ai ]
DailyLaw.ai
[ 2025 DAILYLAW 47372 (AP) · dailylaw.ai ]
Judgment text
Extracted from the PDF above. The PDF is authoritative.
APHC010023742015
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3459] WEDNESDAY,THE TWENTY FOURTH DAY OF SEPTEMBER
TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE SMT JUSTICE SUMATHI JAGADAM
WRIT PETITION NO: 26717/2015
Between:
1. BODDAPATI VENKATA RAMANA MURTHY NAIDU,, S/O.
SANYASI RAO, HINDU, AGED ABOUT 49 YEARS, OCC:
BUSINESS, R/O D.NO.11-248/3, RAMAKRISHNA NAGAR, POPULARLY KNOWN AS JUDGIGARI THOTA, GOPALAPATNAM, VISAKHAPANTNAM DISTRICT.
...PETITIONER
AND
1. UNION OF INDIA, REP BY ITS SECRETARY, MINISTRY EXTERNAL AFFAIRS, NEW DELHI.
2. JOINT SECRETARY CPV APPELLATE AUTHORITY, MINISTRY EXTERNAL AFFAIRS, CPV DIVISION, PATIALA HOUSE ANNEXE, TILAK MARG, NEW DELHI - 110 001.
3. REGIONAL PASSPORT OFFICER, PIO PASSPORT OFFICE, KUMMARIGUDA, SECUNDERABAD.
4. PASSPORT OFFICER PASSPORT OFFICE VISAKHAPATNAM DIST A P, -
...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 toto issue a writ, order or direction more particularly one in the nature of rit of Mandamus declaring the action of the 3rd Respondent in rejecting to/ application by order i.e. HYD/RTI/551/20 & 42/2010, dated: 02.03.2010 and confirmed in appeal by 2nd
2 Respondent in his order no. DY.No. 4644/JS(C.P.V)/10, dated 03.05.2010 as illegal, arbitrary, and unconstitutional and in violation of Sec.8 (3) of Right to Information Act and consequently direct the Respondents to provide the information sought by the petitioner in his application dated: 03.08.2009 and pass.
IA NO: 1 OF 2015(WPMP 34704 OF 2015
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 direct the Respondents herein to provide the information sought by the petitioner in his application dated: 03.08.2009, pending disposal of the above writ petition and to pass
Counsel for the Petitioner:
1. D.GAYATHRI
Counsel for the Respondent(S):
1. DEPUTY SOLICITOR GENERAL OF INDIA The Court made the following:
3
ORDER:
Sri A. Sreeram, learned counsel representing Smt. D. Gayathri,
learned counsel for the petitioner, submits that the cause in the writ petition does not survive for adjudication and the writ petition has become infructuous.
Recording the said submission, the Writ Petition is dismissed as infructuous. No order as to costs.
As a sequel, pending miscellaneous petitions, if any, shall stand closed.
__________________________ JUSTICE SUMATHI JAGADAM
24th September, 2025 cbn
4 261 THE HON’BLE SMT. JUSTICE SUMATHI JAGADAM
WP No.26717 of 2015
24th September, 2025 cbn