Research › Search › Judgment

High Court of Andhra Pradesh · body

2025 DAILYLAW 50731 (AP)

Donthireddy Veera Reddy, v. The State of Andhra Pradesh,

WP/8342/2021 · 2025-10-06

Venkata Jyothirmai Pratapa

body2025

Judgment text

Extracted from the PDF above. The PDF is authoritative.

1 APHC010144752021 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3396] TUESDAY, THE SEVENTH DAY OF OCTOBER TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE DR JUSTICE VENKATA JYOTHIRMAI PRATAPA WRIT PETITION NO: 8342/2021 Between: 1. DONTHIREDDY VEERA REDDY,, S/O GOPI REDDY, HINDU, AGED ABOUT 51 YEARS, R/ O PATAMATA DIGAVALLI VILLAGE, NUZVID MANDAL, KRISHNA DISTRICT. ...PETITIONER AND 1. THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH, REP. BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY, HOME DEPARTMENT, SECRETARIAT BUILDING, VELAGAPUDI, AMARAVATI, GUNTUR DISTRICT. 2. THE STATION HOUSE OFFICER, VISSANNAPET POLICE STATION, KRISHNA DISTRICT. 3. YERRAMSETTI VENKATA RAMA RAO, S/O SUBBA RAO, HINDU, AGED ABOUT 45 YEARS, R/O D.NO.6-14/1D, SIMBANDIPET, BEHIND VENKATESWARA KOVEL TEMPLE, NUZVID TOWN, KRISHNA DISTRICT. 4. GOPE VASANTHA RAO, S/O SOMULU, HINDU, AGED ABOUT 40 YEARS, R/O LEELA NAGAR, NUZVID MANDAL, KRISHNA DISTRICT. ...RESPONDENT(S): Counsel for the Petitioner: 1. G RAMACHANDRA REDDY Counsel for the Respondent(S): 1. The Court made the following: ORDER: This Writ Petition is filed under Article 226 of Constitution of India with the following prayer for: “.... to issue appropriate Writ, Order or direction more particularly WRIT OF MANDAMUS declaring the inaction of the 2nd Respondent in protecting the rights of the Petitioner in his property by way of taking necessary steps for prevention of illegal, unauthorized, irregular, interferences, threatenings of Respondents 3 and 4 and 2 consequently direct the 2nd Respondent to take necessary steps as per the law for protection of Petitioner's property, business, right as guaranteed under the Constitution by way of taking necessary steps preventing the illegal, unauthorized, interferences and demands of Respondents 3 and 4.” 2. Today, when the matter came up for hearing, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that nothing survives for adjudication in the Writ Petition and the matter has become infructuous. 3. Recording the said submission, the Writ Petition is dismissed as infructuous. There shall be no order as to costs. As a sequel thereto, miscellaneous petitions, if any, pending shall stand closed. __________________________________ Dr.VENKATA JYOTHIRMAI PRATAPA, J Date: 07.10.2025 ASR 3 THE HONOURABLE DR JUSTICE VENKATA JYOTHIRMAI PRATAPA W.P.No.8342 of 2021 Dt..07.10.2025 ASR