Research › Search › Judgment

High Court of Andhra Pradesh · body

2026 DAILYLAW 20972 (AP)

Gutta Narendra Prasad S/o Ramakotaiah v. The District Collector, Krishna District

WP/4981/2008 · 2026-02-15

Maheswara Rao Kuncheam

body2026

Judgment text

Extracted from the PDF above. The PDF is authoritative.

1 APHC010243492008 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) MONDAY, THE SIXTEENTH DAY OF FEBRUARY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY SIX PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE MAHESWARA RAO KUNCHEAM WRIT PETITION NO: 4981 OF 2008 Between: 1. Gutta Narendra Prasad, S/o Ramakotaiah, R/o Angaluru Villge, Gudlavalleru Mandal, Krishna District ...Petitioner AND 1. The District Collector Krishna District, Machilipatnam. 2. The District Panchayat Officer, Machilipatnam. 3. The Tahasildar, Gudlavalleru, Krishna District 4. The Mandal Revenue Inspector, Gudlavalleru, Krishna District 5. The District Level Sand Committee Represented by its, Chairman / Joint Collector, Krishna District, Machilipatnam. 6. State of Andhra Pradesh, Rep.by its Principal Secretary, Department of Mines and Geology, Secretariat, Hyderabad. (Respondents 5 & 6 are impleaded as per Court order dated 05/02/15 in WPMP.No.47716/14). ...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 an order or direction or Writ more particularly 2 one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus declaring the action of the respondents in seeking to collect Rs. 15,51,488/- from the petitioner, as illegal, arbitrary, contrary to the provisions of the Andhra Pradesh Minor Mineral concession rules, 1966 the Andhra Pradesh Revenue Recovery Act, 1864, order 39 Rule 3A&B of the code of Civil Procedure, 1908 and unconstitutional and consequently set aside the order of the 3rd respondent in Rc.A 600/7, dated 18-01-2008 and pass such other order or orders as are deemed fit in the facts and circumstances of the case. IA NO: 1 OF 2008(WPMP 6457 OF 2008 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 suspend the operation of the order of the 3rd respondent in Rc.A600/7, dated 18-01-2008, pending disposal of the WP and pass such other order or orders. IA NO: 2 OF 2008(WPMP 11494 OF 2008 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 six weeks time from today for paying 1/3rd amount and to pass such other order or orders IA NO: 3 OF 2008(WPMP 21594 OF 2008 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 six weeks time from today for paying 1/3rd amount in order Dt. 24-6-2008 in WPMP NO. 11494/2008 and pass IA NO: 1 OF 2014(WPMP 47716 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 3 be pleased to implead the proposed respondents herein as party Respondents 5 and 6 to WP No. 4981 of 2008 and as well as Miscellaneous Petitions therein Counsel for the Petitioner: BODDULURI ASSOCIATES Counsel for the Respondents: GP FOR REVENUE Counsel for the Respondents: GP FOR PANCHAYAT RAJ RURAL DEV Counsel for the Respondents: GP FOR MINES AND GEOLOGY The Court made the following order: 4 HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE MAHESWARA RAO KUNCHEAM WRIT PETITION No.4981 OF 2008 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 an order or direction or Writ more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus declaring the action of the respondents in seeking to collect Rs. 15,51,488/- from the petitioner, as illegal, arbitrary, contrary to the provisions of the Andhra Pradesh Minor Mineral concession rules, 1966 the Andhra Pradesh Revenue Recovery Act, 1864, order 39 Rule 3A&B of the code of Civil Procedure, 1908 and unconstitutional and consequently set aside the order of the 3rd respondent in Rc.A600/7, dated 18-01-2008 and pass …..” 2. On 05.05.2023, this Court passed the following order: “No representation on behalf of the petitioner.” 3. On 02.02.2026, the following order was passed by this Court: “No representation for the petitioner on 05.05.2023. Even today, there is no representation. Learned Government Pleader sought time for getting instructions. List the matter on 12.02.2026.” 5 4. Today, when the matter is called in the morning session, none appeared for the petitioner and the matter is passed over till 4.10 p.m. Even in the revised call at 4.15 p.m. also no representation for the petitioner. It seems that the petitioner is not evincing any interest to prosecute the matter. 5. Hence, the writ petition is dismissed for want of prosecution. There shall be no order as to costs. Miscellaneous petitions pending if any, shall stand closed. ______________________________ MAHESWARA RAO KUNCHEAM, J Date:16.02.2026 Rns 6 THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE MAHESWARA RAO KUNCHEAM WRIT PETITION No.4981 of 2008 Date:16.02.2026 Rns