Research › Search › Judgment

High Court of Andhra Pradesh · body

2026 DAILYLAW 21806 (AP)

SRI VEERA VENKATA SATYANARAYANA, REP.BY PROP., VISAKHAPATNAM v. THE STATE OF A.P.,REP.BY SECRETARY, ERC.,HYDERABAD,& 4 OTRS.

WP/8880/2013 · 2026-03-04

Ninala Jayasurya

body2026

Judgment text

Extracted from the PDF above. The PDF is authoritative.

APHC010307792013 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3209] THURSDAY, THE FIFTH DAY OF MARCH TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY SIX PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE NINALA JAYASURYA WRIT PETITION NO: 8880/2013 Between: 1. SRI VEERA VENKATA SATYANARAYANA, REP.BY PROP., VISAKHAPATNAM, MODERN RICE MILL REP BY ITS PROPRIETOR V. V. V. SATYANARAYANA, MADDI VILLAGE, PADMANABHAM MANDAL, VISAKHAPATNAM DISTRICT. ...PETITIONER AND 1. THE STATE OF A P REP BY SECRETARY ERC HYDERABAD 4 OTRS, REP BY ITS SECRETARY, ERC HYDERABAD 2. THE SUPERINTENDENT ENGINEER OPERATIONS, APEPDCL, VISAKHAPATNAM 3. THE DIVISIONAL ELECTRICAL ENGINEER, OPERATIONS, ZONE III VISAKHAPATNAM 4. THE ASST ENGINEER OPERATIONS, PADMANABHAM, VISAKHAPATNAM 5. THE ASST DIV ENGINEER OPERATIONS, APEPDCL, BHIMILI ...RESPONDENT(S): NJS,J W.P No.8880 of 201 2 Counsel for the Petitioner: 1. D JAIPAL REDDY Counsel for the Respondent(S): 1. V V SATISH (SC for APEPDCL) 2. P ANAND SESHU (SC FOR APEPDCL) 3. GP FOR IRRIGATION & COMM AREA DEV NJS,J W.P No.8880 of 201 3 The Court made the following Order: On 03.03.2026, there was no representation on behalf of the petitioner and matter was directed to be listed under the caption “for Dismissal”. 2. Though the matter is listed under the caption “for Dismissal”, there is no representation on behalf of the petitioner, even today also. 3. Under the said circumstances, this Court is inclined to dismiss the writ petition for non-prosecution. 4. Accordingly, this Writ Petition is dismissed for non-prosecution. No costs. Miscellaneous petitions pending, if any, shall stand closed. __________________________ JUSTICE NINALA JAYASURYA Date:05.03.2026 Ksj