1 APHC010117782022 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3396] THURSDAY,THE THIRTEENTH DAY OF NOVEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE DR JUSTICE VENKATA JYOTHIRMAI PRATAPA WRIT PETITION NO: 7012/2022 Between: 1. N MAHESWAR REDDY, AGED ABOUT 55 YEARS, S/O.LATE SUBBA REDDY, R/O. PUTLAMPALLI VILLAGE, KADAPA MANDAL, Y.S.R.KADAPA DISTRICT. ...PETITIONER AND 1. THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH, REPRESENTED BY ITS PRINCIPLE SECRETARY, HOME DEPARTMENT, SECRETARIAT, VELAGAPUDI, AMARAVATHI, GUNTUR DISTRICT. 2. THE SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE, KADAPA, Y.S.R.KADAPA DISTRICT. 3. THE CIRCLE INSPECTOR, RIMS POLICE STATION, KADAPA, Y.S.R.KADAPA DISTRICT. 4. THE DISTRICT REGISTRAR, REGISTRATION AND STAMPS DEPARTMENT, KADAPA, Y.S.R.KADAPA DISTRICT. 5. THE JOINT SUBREGISTRAR, KADAPA URBAN REGISTRATION AND STAMPS DEPARTMENT, KADAPA, Y.S.R.KADAPA DISTRICT. 6. THE TAHASILDAR, KADAPA, Y.S.R.KADAPA DISTRICT. 7. N OBULA REDDY, AGED ABOUT 82 YEARS, S/O.N. SUBBI REDDY, R/O.D.NO.4/615-2, ARAVINDA NAGAR, CHINNACHOWK, KADAPA, Y.S.R.KADAPA DISTRICT. 8. N PRAMEELAMMA, AGED ABOUT 76 YEARS, W/O.N.OBULA REDDY, R/O.D.NO.4/615-2, ARAVINDA NAGAR, CHINNACHOWK, KADAPA, Y.S.R.KADAPA DISTRICT. 9. N VENUGOPAL REDDY, AGED ABOUT 58 YEARS, S/O.N.OBULA REDDY, R/O.D.NO.4/615-2, ARAVINDA NAGAR, CHINNACHOWK, KADAPA, Y.S.R.KADAPA DISTRICT. ...RESPONDENT(S): Counsel for the Petitioner: 1. G RAMACHANDRA REDDY Counsel for the Respondent(S): 1. GP FOR HOME ORDER: 2 This Writ Petition is filed under Article 226 of Constitution of India with the following prayer for: “.... to issue a Writ, Order or Direction particularly in the nature of Writ of Mandamus directing the respondents especially the 3rd respondent to initiate action under Sections 82 and 83 of the Registration Act as sought by the 5th respondent in his proceedings No.G2/1615/2021 dated 31-12-2021 against respondents 7 to 9 by declaring the inaction of the respondents, especially the 3' respondent in not initiating any action inspite of the complaint given by the public servant, i.e, 5th respondent who gave the complaint based on the conclusion arrived in departmental enquiry as illegal and arbitrary in the interest of justice and pass.” 2. Today, when the matter came up for hearing, learned counsel for the petitioner would submit 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: 13.11.2025 RSD 3 26 THE HONOURABLE DR JUSTICE VENKATA JYOTHIRMAI PRATAPA W.P.No.7012 of 2022 Dt..13.11.2025 RSD