PENDELA CHANDRAKALA v. THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH
WP/5383/2025 · 2026-01-04
Gannamaneni Ramakrishna Prasad
body2026
DailyLaw.ai
[ 2026 DAILYLAW 17912 (AP) · dailylaw.ai ]
DailyLaw.ai
[ 2026 DAILYLAW 17912 (AP) · dailylaw.ai ]
Judgment text
Extracted from the PDF above. The PDF is authoritative.
1
APHC010099062025
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3328] MONDAY,THE FIFTH DAY OF JANUARY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY SIX PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE GANNAMANENI RAMAKRISHNA PRASAD WRIT PETITION NO: 5383/2025 Between:
1. PENDELA CHANDRAKALA, D/O T RADHA KRISHNA MURTHY, AGED ABOUT 49 YEARS, OCC ADVOCATE, R/O H.NO.12-261, NEAR SAI BABA TEMPLE, PIDUGURALLA, PALNADU DISTRICT 522413
...PETITIONER AND
1. THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH, REP. BY IT S LAW SECRETARY, DEPARTMENT OF LAW AND JUSTICE, SECRETARIAT BUILDINGS, VELAGAPUDI, GUNTUR DISTRICT.
2. THE DISTRICT COLLECTOROF PALNADU DISTRICT, THE DISTRICT COLLECOR OFFICE COMPLEX, NARASARAOPET, PALNADU DISTRICT.
3. K KUMARASWAMY, S/O NOT KNOWN TO THE PETITIONER, AGED ABOUT 55 YEARS, OCC ADVOCATE, C/O PIDUGURALLA BAR ASSOCIATION, JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE COURT COMPLEX, PIDUGURALLA, PALNADU DISTRICT.
4. MOULALI, , S/O NOT KNOWN TO THE PETITIONER, AGED ABOUT 45 YEARS, OCC
ADVOCATE, C/O PIDUGURALLA BAR ASSOCIATION, JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE COURT COMPLEX, PIDUGURALLA, PALNADU DISTRICT.
5. M SRINIVASA RAO, S/O NOT KNOWN TO THE PETITIONER, AGED ABOUT 40 YEARS, OCC ADVOCATE, C/O PIDUGURALLA BAR ASSOCIATION, JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE COURT COMPLEX, PIDUGURALLA, PALNADU DISTRICT
6. P MANIKYAM, D/O NOT KNOWN TO THE PETITIONER, AGED
2
ABOUT 45 YEARS, OCC ADVOCATE, C/O PIDUGURALLA BAR ASSOCIATION, JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE COURT COMPLEX, PIDUGURALLA, PALNADU DISTRICT.
...RESPONDENT(S): Counsel for the Petitioner:
1. J U M V PRASAD Counsel for the Respondent(S):
1. VENKATA DURGA RAO ANANTHA
2. GP FOR LAW LEGISLATIVE AFFAIRS The Court made the following:
ORAL ORDER:
Smt. B. Mounika, learned Counsel for the Writ Petitioner, on instructions, submits that this Writ Petition has become infructuous.
2. Having noted the same, this Writ Petition is disposed of as having become infructuous. No order as to costs.
3. Interlocutory Applications, if any, stand closed in terms of this order.
______________________________________ GANNAMANENI RAMAKRISHNA PRASAD, J
Dt:05.01.2026 Vns