Research › Search › Judgment

High Court of Andhra Pradesh · body

2026 DAILYLAW 20825 (AP)

PILLI DURGA RAO v. THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH

WP/12610/2023 · 2026-03-23

Ravi Cheemalapati

Public Interest Litigationbody2026

Judgment text

Extracted from the PDF above. The PDF is authoritative.

APHC010240622023 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3332] TUESDAY,THE TWENTY FOURTH DAY OF MARCH TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY SIX PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE RAVI CHEEMALAPATI WRIT PETITION NO: 12610/2023 Between: 1. PILLI DURGA RAO, S/O VENKAIAH, AGED 44 YEARS, OCC. BUSINESS, R/O D.NO.3-52, NARMADA NAGAR, VISSANNAPETA, KHAMBHAMPADU, KRISHNA DISTRICT- 521227, FRIENDS ELECTRONICS SCALE SERVICE. 2. PALLPAMULA RATNAM,, S/O BHASKAR RAO, AGED 47 YEARS, OCC. BUSINESS, R/O D.NO.7-23, K.SITHARAMAPURAM, SRINARASANNNAPALEM, KRISHNA DISTRICT-521105, PRABHU SCALE SERVICE. 3. MEDA RAJENDRA RAO,, S/O SUBBA RAO, AGED 37 YEARS, OCC. BUSINESS, R/O D.NO.2-21, MITTAGUDEM, TATAKUNTLA, VISANNAPET MANDAL, KRISHNA DISTRICT- 521215, KIRANMAYI SCALE SERVICE. 4. NANDEPU MOSHE,, S/O SUNADAM, AGED 45 YEARS, OCC. BUSINESS, R/O D.NO.29-25, NEW RAJARAJESWARIPET, VIJAYAWADA, KRISHNA DISTRICT-520003, HANISH SCALE SERVICE. 5. BOKINALA VIJAYA KUMAR,, S/O YESU RATNAM, AGED 44 YEARS, OCC. BUSINESS, R/O D.NO.32-13-53/138, INDIRA NAGAR, OPP. AMMA KALYANA MANDAPAM, MOGHALARAJPURAM, VIJAYAWADA, KRISHNA DISTRICT- 521227, CHANDRA WEIGHING SERVICES. 2 6. RENTAPALLI KIRAN KUMAR,, S/O SUBBA RAO, AGED 49 YEARS, OCC. BUSINESS, R/O D.NO.1-3/20-6, TANUKU VAN STREET, VIDHYADHARAPURAM, VIJAWADA, KRISHNA DISTRICT-521227, RAVI TEJA SCALE SERVICE. 7. MOHAMMAD KHADAR,, S/O MOHAMMAD MASTHAN, AGED 46 YEARS, OCC. BUSINESS, R/O D.NO.13-182, CHANDALURU, NANDIGAMA, NTR DISTRICT-521185. AMMA ELECTRONIC SERVICE. ...PETITIONER(S) AND 1. THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH, REP. BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT, CIVIL SUPPLIES DEPARTMENT, SECRETARIAT, VELAGAPUDI, GUNTUR DISTRICT. 2. THE COMMISSIONER, CIVIL SUPPLIES DEPARTMENT, GOVERNMENT OF ANDHRA PRADESH, D.NO.10-152-1, CIVIL SUPPLIES BHAVAN, 19T FLOOR, ASHOKNAGAR, BANDARU ROAD, VIJAYAWADA, KRISHNA DISTRICT, A.P. 3. THE CONTROLLER OF LEGAL METROLOGY, METROLOGY DEPARTMENT, D.NO.10-152-1, CIVIL SUPPLIES BHAVAN, 1ST FLOOR, ASHOKNAGAR, BANDARU ROAD, VIJAYAWADA, KRISHNA DISTRICT, A.P. 4. THE JOINT CONTROLLER OF LEGAL METROLOGY, METROLOGY DEPARTMENT, SIDDHARTHA NAGAR, 1ST LINE, GUNTUR, ANDHRA PRADESH. 5. THE DEPUTY CONTROLLER OF LEGAL METROLOGY, METROLOGY DEPARTMENT, SIDDHARTHA NAGAR, 1ST LINE, GUNTUR, ANDHRA PRADESH. ...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 to issue any Writ, Order or Direction more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus declare the action of the 3 respondents in imposing condition that restricting/limiting the read of jurisdiction of the petitioners to Krishna District in so far as repairs works is concerned is bad, illegal, arbitrary, unjust, improper, contrary to law, amounts of non-application of mind, contrary to Rules, Contrary to Act and in violation of fundamental rights guaranteed under Article 14, 19 and 21 of the Constitution of India and consequently direct the respondents to remove such condition and allow the petitioners to work throughout the Andhra Pradesh State, whenever they get customers and to pass IA NO: 1 OF 2023 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 to consider the representation dated 24.02.2023 submitted by the Association on behalf of the petitioners forthwith, requesting the respondents to permit the petitioners to work throughout the Andhra Pradesh State pending disposal of the writ petition and pass Counsel for the Petitioner(S): 1. NAGESWARA RAO BAIPUDI Counsel for the Respondent(S): 1. GP FOR CIVIL SUPPLIES The Court made the following: 4 ORDER: On 03.02.2026, 24.02.2026 & 10.03.2026, there was no representation for the petitioners and the matter has been listed under the caption ‘for dismissal’. Despite the matter being listed under the caption ‘for dismissal’, today also, there is no representation for the petitioners. It shows that the petitioners are not interested in prosecuting the matter. Accordingly, the Writ Petition is dismissed for non prosecution. There shall be no order as to costs. As a sequel, miscellaneous applications, pending if any, shall stand closed. _____________________________ JUSTICE RAVI CHEEMALAPATI Date: 24th March, 2026 RKS