Research › Search › Judgment

High Court of Andhra Pradesh · body

2026 DAILYLAW 20339 (AP)

Akshaya Gold Badhitula Sankshema Sangam v. The State of Andhra Pradesh

WP/12352/2021 · 2026-03-06

Y Lakshmana Rao

body2026

Judgment text

Extracted from the PDF above. The PDF is authoritative.

APHC010213622021 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3521] SATURDAY,THE SEVENTH DAY OF MARCH TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY SIX PRESENT THE HONOURABLE DR JUSTICE Y. LAKSHMANA RAO WRIT PETITION NO: 12352/2021 Between: 1.AKSHAYA GOLD BADHITULA SANKSHEMA SANGAM,, REP. BY ITS PRESIDENT, MIRIYALA LACHAIAH, S/O. SRI RAMULU, AGED ABOUT 40 YEARS, OCC AGRICULTURE, R/O, THOGARRAI VILLAGE, KODAD MANDAL, NALGONDA DISTRICT. ...PETITIONER AND 1.THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH, REPRESENTED BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY, HOME DEPARTMENT, SECRETARIAT BUILDINGS, VELAGAPUDI, AMARAVATHI, GUNTUR DISTRICT. 2.THE DIRECTOR GENERAL OF POLICE, , GUNTUR, GUNTUR DISTRICT - 522 502. 3.THE ADDITIONAL DIRECTOR GENERAL OF POLICE, CID, GUNTUR, GUNTUR DISTRICT - 522 502. 4.THE SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE, GUNTUR, GUNTUR DISTRICT - 522 502. 5.THE DEPUTY SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE, CID, RCIU, GUNTUR, GUNTUR DISTRICT - 522 503. 6.M/S AKSHAYA GOLD FARMS AND VILLAS INDIA LIMITED, REP. BY DIRECTOR, SRI DEVAKI SRIKANTH GUPTA, D.NO. 47-14-9/9, 2ND AND 3RD FLOORS, HDFC BANK UPSTAIRS, POTLURI MANSION, DWARAKANAGAR MAIN ROAD, VISAKHAPATNAM - 530 016. 2 ...RESPONDENT(S): Counsel for the Petitioner: 1.G R SUDHAKAR Counsel for the Respondent(S): 1.GP FOR HOME 2.Y L SIVAKALPANA REDDY(SC CUM SPL PP,CID) The Court made the following: ORDER: Despite the matter having been listed, there has been no representation on behalf of the Petitioner. Even after affording sufficient opportunity, neither the Petitioner nor their Counsel have chosen to appear or prosecute the case. It is also pertinent to observe that the present case constitutes one of the oldest matters pending on the roster. The non- appearance of the Petitioner, despite the long pendency of the matter, reflects a lack of diligence. In view of the absence of representation and the failure to advance arguments, this Court is of the opinion that the Petitioner is not interested in pursuing the present proceedings. Accordingly, the Writ Petition is dismissed for non- prosecution. As a sequel, interlocutory applications, if any pending, shall stand closed. _________________________ Dr. Y. LAKSHMANA RAO, J Dt: 07.03.2026 VTS 3