APHC010020892017 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3333] SATURDAY, THE 19th DAY OF SEPTEMBER 2026 PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SMT JUSTICE V.SUJATHA WRIT PETITION NO: 22792/2017 Between: 1. THE BAR ASSOCIATION, NUZVID, KRISHNA DISTRICT REP. BY ITS PRESIDENT K.V.K.VIKRAM KUMAR, S/O PURNACHANDRA RAO, AGED ABOUT 57 YEARS, OCC: ADVOCATE/ PRESIDENT OF BAR ASSOCIATION, NUZVID ...PETITIONER AND 1. THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH, REP. BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY, DEPARTMENT OF LAW SECRETARIAT, VELAGAPUDI, AMARAVATHI, GUNTUR DISTRICT. 2. THE BAR COUNCIL OF INDIA, 21, ROUSE AVENUE INSTITUTIONAL AREA, NEAR BAT BHAWAN, NEW DELHI, DELHI -110002. 3. THE BAR COUNCIL OF ANDHRA PRADESH, HIGH COURT COMPLEX, HYDERABAD, TELANGANA-500066. 4. BHARAT BAR ASSOCIATION, REP. BY ITS PRESIDENT NUZVID, KRISHNA DISTRICT. ...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 or order more particularly one in the nature of WRIT OF MANDAMUS declaring action of the Respondent No.3 for not considering the Petitioner's Bar Associatio: Representation dated 17-04-2017 which is 2 bad, illegal, arbitrary, discriminatory, contrary and violation of principle of natural justice and consequently direCt the Respondents No.3 to consider the Petitioner's Bar Association Representation dated 17-04-2017 and to pass such other order or orders as this Hon' ble Court may deem fit and proper in the circumstances of the case. IA NO: 1 OF 2017(WPMP 28069 OF 2017 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 No.3 to consider the Petitioner's Representation dated 1704-2017, and to resolve the issue, pending disposal of the above writ petition, in the interest of justice and pass such other order or orders as this Hon'ble Court may deem fit and proper in the circumstances of the case. Counsel for the Petitioner: 1. K SAI MOHAN RAO Counsel for the Respondent(S): 1. KOWTURU PAVAN KUMAR 2. G M MOHIUDDIN 3. MAHESWARA RAO KUNCHEAM 4. GP FOR LAW & LEGISLATIVE AFFAIRS (AP) 5. S NANDA The Court made the following: 3 THE HONOURABLE SMT JUSTICE V.SUJATHA WRIT PETITION NO: 22792/2017 ORDER: The present writ petition has been filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, seeking the following relief: “…to issue a writ or order more particularly one in the nature of WRIT OF MANDAMUS declaring the action of the Respondent No.3 for not considering the Petitioner's Bar Association Representation dated 17- 04-2017 which is bad, illegal, arbitrary, discriminatory, contrary and violation of principle of natural justice and consequently direct the Respondents No.3 to consider the Petitioner's Bar Association Representation dated 17-04-2017 and to pass such other order or orders…” 2. The case of the petitioner, in brief, is that the Nuzvid Bar Association has been in existence for more than seven decades, since the establishment of the Courts at Nuzvid. It is stated that, about three years prior to the filing of the writ petition, certain unsuccessful members of the said Bar Association formed another association under the name and style of “Bharath Bar Association, Nuzvid” and claimed that the same was registered and recognized. Aggrieved thereby, the petitioner submitted representations to the concerned authorities on 27.09.2012, 16.07.2013, 10.04.2016 and 17.04.2017, requesting appropriate action with regard to the merger of the said second association with the Nuzvid Bar Association. 3. No counter-affidavit has been filed by the respondents. 4 4. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner, the learned Standing Counsel appearing for respondent No.3 and Sri G. Venkata Reddy, learned Standing Counsel appearing for respondent No.2. 5. During the course of hearing, learned Standing Counsel appearing for the respondents brought to the notice of this Court that, subsequent to the filing of the writ petition, elections were conducted by treating the Nuzvid Bar Association as a single Bar Association. It is also submitted that the alleged “Bharath Bar Association, Nuzvid” is not in existence as the said Bar Association has not participated in the subsequent elections as a separate Bar Association. 6. In view of the subsequent developments and the fact that the elections have been conducted treating the Nuzvid Bar Association as a single Bar Association, the grievance raised by the petitioner in the present writ petition does not survive for consideration. 7. Accordingly, the writ petition is dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs. Miscellaneous Interlocutory Applications pending, if any, in this case, shall stand closed. ______________________ JUSTICE V.SUJATHA Date: 19.09.2026 KA/JS 5 THE HONOURABLE SMT JUSTICE V.SUJATHA WRIT PETITION NO: 22792/2017 Date: 19.09.2026 KA/JS