G.Jeevan Prasad Babu,S/o.G.Vijay Babu v. Government of Andhra Pradesh
WP/2936/2013 · 2026-02-16
Maheswara Rao Kuncheam
body2026
DailyLaw.ai
[ 2026 DAILYLAW 18189 (AP) · dailylaw.ai ]
DailyLaw.ai
[ 2026 DAILYLAW 18189 (AP) · dailylaw.ai ]
Judgment text
Extracted from the PDF above. The PDF is authoritative.
1
APHC010107552013
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction)
TUESDAY, THE SEVENTEENTH DAY OF FEBRUARY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY SIX PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE MAHESWARA RAO KUNCHEAM WRIT PETITION NO: 2936 OF 2013 Between:
1. G.Jeevan Prasad Babu, S/o.G.Vijay Babu, Proprietor M/s.Sarojamma Metal Traders, Aged about 33 years, Occ:Business, R/o.87/1201.S.P.16, Somisetti Nagar, Kurnool. ...Petitioner AND
1. Government of Andhra Pradesh, Rep.by its Principal Secretary - Mines & Geology, Secretariat, Hyderabad. 2. The Revenue Divisional Officer Kurnool Kurnool District,
3. The Tahsildar Kurnool Mandal Kurnool,
4. The Deputy Director Mines & Geology Kurnool,
5. The Assistant Director Mines & Geology, Kurnool. ...Respondents 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 to issue a Writ of Mandamus, or any other appropriate writ, order or direction, declaring the action of the 2nd respondent in issuing proceedings vide ReNo.1626/2012 dt.17.10.2012 and the proceedings of the 5th respondent Lr.No.5415/M4/2010 dated 16.1.2013 and the proceedings of the 4th respondent Proc.No.2519/Q1/2012 dated 24.1.2013 as illegal, arbitrary, without jurisdiction and set aside the same
2
and pass such other order or orders as may deem fit and proper in the circumstances of the case. IA NO: 1 OF 2013(WPMP 3610 OF 2013 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 grant interim suspension of the proceedings issued by the 2nd respondent vide Ref. no. 1626/2012 dt. 17.10.2012 and the consequential proceedings of the 5th respondent Lr. No. 5415/M4/2010 dated 16.1.2013 and the proceedings of the 4th respondent Proc. No. 2519/Q1/2012 dated 24.1.2013, pending disposal of the above writ petition and pass such other order or further orders as this Hon'ble Court may deem fit and proper in the circumstances of the case. IA NO: 2 OF 2013(WPMP 3611 OF 2013 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 5th respondent to execute the lease deed pursuant to the proceedings No. 2519/Q1/2012 dt. 11.10.2012, pending disposal of the above writ petition and pass such other order or further orders as this Hon'ble Court may deem fit and proper in the circumstances of the case.
IA NO: 1 OF 2014(WPMP 25712 OF 2014 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 implead the Petitioner No. 2 and myself as Respondents 6 and 7 in the WP No. 2936 of 213 as well as WPMP No. 3610 and 3611 of 2013 in the interest of justice Counsel for the Petitioner: V SESHA KUMARI Counsel for the Respondents: N SHOBA Counsel for the Respondents:GP FOR MINES AND GEOLOGY The Court made the following order:
3
HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE MAHESWARA RAO KUNCHEAM WRIT PETITION No.2936 OF 2013
ORDER:
The instant writ petition has been filed by the petitioner under Article 226 of Constitution of India seeking the following main prayer:
“to issue a Writ of Mandamus, or any other appropriate writ, order or direction, declaring the action of the 2nd respondent in issuing proceedings vide ReNo.1626/2012 dt.17.10.2012 and the proceedings of the 5th respondent Lr.No.5415/M4/2010 dated 16.1.2013 and the proceedings of the 4th respondent Proc.No.2519/Q1/2012 dated 24.1.2013 as illegal, arbitrary, without jurisdiction and set aside the same and pass …..”
2. When the matter is taken up for hearing, Mr.Sai Lochan,
learned counsel representing Sri C.Raghu, learned counsel for the petitioner, submits that in view of subsequent events taken place in the lis, the cause in the writ petition does not survive for further adjudication and the writ petition becomes infructuous.
3. Recording the submission made by the learned counsel for the petitioner, the writ petition is dismissed as infructuous. There shall be no order as to costs. Miscellaneous petitions pending if any, shall stand closed.
______________________________ MAHESWARA RAO KUNCHEAM, J Date:17.02.2026 Rns
4
THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE MAHESWARA RAO KUNCHEAM
WRIT PETITION No.2936 of 2013
Date:17.02.2026 Rns