Telangana High Court
WP/24985/2004 of Sunkavalli Ramesh, Vs The Government of Andhra Pradesh, on 31 December 2004
COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) FRIDAY, THE THIRTY FIRST DAY OF DECEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND FOUR PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE N.V. RAMANA WRIT PETITION NO : 24985 of 2004 Between: Sunkavalli Ramesh, S/o Sithapathi, Hindu, Representing Rishi Agro
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD
(Special Original Jurisdiction)
FRIDAY, THE THIRTY FIRST DAY OF DECEMBERTWO THOUSAND AND FOUR
PRESENT
THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE N.V. RAMANAWRIT PETITION NO : 24985 of 2004
Between:
Sunkavalli Ramesh, S/o Sithapathi, Hindu, Representing Rishi Agro Farms as Managing Partner R/o D.No. 6-4-28, T.Nagar,Rajahmundry, East Godavari District.
..... PETITIONER
AND
1 The Government of Andhra Pradesh, rep. by its Principal Secretary, Revenue Department, Secretariat, Hyderabad. Revenue Department, Secretariat, Hyderabad.
2 The District Collector, East Godavari District, Kakinada.
3 Revenue Divisional Officer, Kakinada, East Godavari District.
4 The Joint Collector, East Godavari District,Kakinada.
5 Mandal Revenue Officer, Gollaprolu, Gollaprolu Mandalam, East Godavari District.District.
.....RESPONDENTS
Petition under Article 226 of the constitution of India praying that in thecircumstances stated in the Affidavit filed herein the High Court will be pleased toissue a writ or order or direction one in nature of 'Writ of Mandamus declaring theinaction of the Respondents in considering the reminder representation dated 2-12-2004 as illegal, arbitrary, questionable, unconstitutional and the same is contrary tothe constitutional and the same is contrary to the constitutional provisions and theprovisions of the administrative law and consequently to direct the respondents toconduct inquiry and to consider the representation of the Petitioner dated 2-12-2004for due protection of rightful possession of the Petitioner with respect to 'A' 'B'scheduled property under the lease deed 27-12-1997 and pass such other order ororders Counsel for the Petitioner: GULLAPALLI RADHAKRISHNAN
Counsel for the Respondents: GP FOR REVENUE
The Court made the following:
Citations and Judicial Treatment
Cited by
0
Decisions in the index citing it
Cites
0
Decisions referred to
In this index
0
Of the decisions it cites
Overruled / Questioned
0
No negative treatment found
Loading the citing and cited decisions…
This judgment in the centre: on the left the decisions it cites, on the right the decisions citing it. Colour is the treatment; choose a decision to open it.
ORAL ORDER:
When the matter is taken up for hearing, learned counsel for thepetitioner sought permission of the Court to withdraw the writ petition.Permission is accorded.
In the result, the writ petition is dismissed, as withdrawn. No costs.
mdaa 31-12-2004
----------------------
To
1 The Principal Secretary, Revenue Department, The Government of Andhra Pradesh, Secretariat, Hyderabad. Pradesh, Secretariat, Hyderabad.
2 The District Collector, East Godavari District, Kakinada.
3 Revenue Divisional Officer, Kakinada, East Godavari District.
4 The Joint Collector, East Godavari District,Kakinada.
5 Mandal Revenue Officer, Gollaprolu, Gollaprolu Mandalam, East Godavari District.District.
6 Two Copies to G.P for Revenue, High Court buildings, Hyderabad.
7 Two CD copies.