Research › Search › Judgment

High Court of Andhra Pradesh · body

2025 DAILYLAW 8351 (AP)

A LAKSHMINARAYANA v. THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH

WP/4483/2023 · 2025-09-02

Ninala Jayasurya, Tuhin Kumar Gedela

body2025

Judgment text

Extracted from the PDF above. The PDF is authoritative.

APHC010089672023 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) WEDNESDAY, THE THIRD DAY OF SEPTEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE NINALA JAYASURYA AND THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE TUHIN KUMAR GEDELA WRIT PETITION No.4483 OF 2023 Between: A.Lakshminarayana, S/o.A.Chinna Maddaiah, aged about 69 years, Occ:Retired School Assistant (Hindi Pandit), Z.P. High School, Peddapasupula Village, Peddamudiyam Mandal, YSR Kadapa District, R/o.H.No.4/889, Nehru Nagar, Jammalamadugu, YSR Kadapa District - 516434. ...Petitioner AND 1. The State of Andhra Pradesh, Represented by its Principal Secretary, School Education, Secretariat, Amaravathi at Vijayawada. 2. The Principal Accountant General A and E, Andhra Pradesh, Stalin Central Mall, Door No. 27-37-158, 6th and 7th Floor, M.G. Road, Governorpet, Vijayawada - 520002. 3. The Director of Treasuries and Accounts Cum Chief Executive Officer, Comprehensive Financial Management System (CFMS), Anjaneya Towers, 6th Floor, Ibrahim Patnam, Vijayawada -521456. 4. The District Educational Officer, , YSR District at Kadapa. 5. The District Treasury Officer, YSR District at Kadapa. 6. The Sub Treasury Officer, Jammalamadugu, YSR Kadapa District. 7. The Head Master, Z.P. High School, Peddapasupula Village, Peddamudiyam Mandal, YSR Kadapa District ...Respondents Counsel for the Petitioner : Mr.A.V.V.S. Bhujanga Rao Counsel for the Respondents: G.P. for Services III G.P. for Services I Smt.K.Swarna Seshu 2 The Court made the following ORDER: (per Hon’ble NJS,J) Perused the instructions dated 23.7.2025 and the letter annexed to it. It appears that in view of the subsequent developments, the petitioner is not intending to pursue the matter. Be that as it may. There is no representation on behalf of the writ petitioner. 2. Hence, the writ petition is dismissed for non–prosecution. No order as to costs. Miscellaneous petitions pending, if any, shall stand closed. ____________________ NINALA JAYASURYA,J _____________________________ TUHIN KUMAR GEDELA,J September 03, 2025 vasu