Andhra Pradesh High Court
WP/25605/2026 of P V G D PRASAD REDDY Vs ANDHRA UNIVERSITY on 22 September 2026
for orders : Date of pronouncement : Date of uploading : APHC010467362026 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3329] WEDNESDAY, THE 23rd DAY OF SEPTEMBER 2026 PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE VENKATESWARLU NIMMAGADDA WRIT PETITION NO: 25606/2026
Date of reserved for orders :
Date of pronouncement :
Date of uploading :
APHC010467362026
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA
PRADESH
AT AMARAVATI
(Special Original Jurisdiction)
WEDNESDAY, THE 23rd DAY OF SEPTEMBER 2026
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE VENKATESWARLU
NIMMAGADDA
WRIT PETITION NO: 25606/2026
Between:
1. LVSR MINES AND MINERALS, REP. BY ITS MANAGING
PARTNER S. CHETAN KUMAR REDDY S/O SADASIVA
REDDY AGE32 YEARS OCC. BUSINESS, D.NO.3-55/1
B.N. REDDY COLONY, MADANAPALLI ANNAMAYYA
DISTRICT.
...PETITIONER
AND
1. THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH, , REP. BY ITS
PRINCIPAL
SECRETARY
MINES
AND
GEOLOGY
DEPARTMENT, A.P.SECRETARIAT VELAGAPUDI AT AN
LARAVATI.-522237
2. THE DIRECTOR OF MINES AND GEOLOGY, AT
IBRAHIMPATNAM VIJAYAWADA N.T.R DISTRICT. - 520001
3. THE DIVISIONAL MINES AND GEOLOGY OFFICER, MADANAPALLE
DIVISION
ANNAMAYYA
DISTRICT.-
517325
...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 toissue an order, writ or direction more particularly in the nature of Writ of Mandamus declaring the action of the 2nd and 3rd respondents in not disposing the quarry leaseapplication of the petitioner dated 13-03-2018 for grant of lease to quarry Quartz to an extent of 13.770 Hects in Sy. No.
356/3, 356/2, 357, 358, 359, 360, 361/1,2, 362/1,2, 364, 363/1,2
366, 336 and 365 of Buchipalli village, Peddatippa Samudram Mandal, Annamayya District (Previously Chittoor District) under A.P. Minor Mineral Concession Rules, 1966 even after all formalities are completed as mandated under rules to grant quarry lease as being arbitrary, illegal, and unconstitutional and contrary to Mines and Minerals (Development AND Regulation)
Act, 1957 and the rules made there under apart from being of violation of Article 19 and 300-A of Constitution of India and consequently direct the 2nd and 3rd respondents to consider the application of the petitioner dated 13-03-2018 and pass IA NO: 1 OF 2026
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 Direct the 2nd and 3rd respondents to consider the application of the petitioner dated 13- 03-2018 for grant of quarrying lease to quarry Quartz to an extent of 13.770 Hects in Sy. No. 356/3, 356/2, 357, 358, 359, 360, 361/1,2, 362/1,2, 364, 363/1,2 366, 336 and 365 of Buchipalli village, Peddatippa Samudram Mandal, Annamayya District (previously Chittoor District) forthwith pending disposal of the Writ Petition Counsel for the Petitioner:
1. K NAVEEN KUMAR
Counsel for the Respondent(S):
1. GP FOR MINES AND GEOLOGY
The Court made the following:
‘
HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE NYAPATHY VIJAY
W.P.No. 25605 of 2026
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.
O R D E R:
The present writ petition is filed questioning the charge memo issued under Proceedings dated 15.08.2026, as unsustainable and contrary to A.P. Universities Act, 1991.
2. Sri. G.Ramachandra Rao, learned counsel for the Respondents, would submit that the charge memo was withdrawn without prejudice and reserving the right to conduct further departmental proceedings as per the Rules and Regulations of Andhra University and APCS (CCA) Rules by the letter dated 29.09.2026, which was also communicated to the Petitioner.
3. Learned Senior Counsel for the Petitioner would submit that in view of the withdrawal of the charge memo, the retirement benefits due to the Petitioner should be disbursed by the Respondent-University.
4. Learned counsel further submits that since disciplinary proceedings are being issued against the Petitioner afresh, the retirement benefits which cannot be withheld by the Respondent- University in spite of departmental enquiry, such retirement benefits would be released at the earliest subject to the rules and regulations applicable to the Petitioner.
5. In the light of the same, the primary relief sought in the writ petition does not survive for consideration and the writ petition is disposed of, directing the Respondents to disburse the retirement benefits due to the Petitioner as per the Rules in vogue as expeditiously as possible. The issues raised in the writ petition with regard to the jurisdiction and other legal aspects are left open to be considered in any charge memo to be issued to the Petitioner. There shall be no order as to costs. As a sequel, the miscellaneous petitions if any shall stand dismissed. ___________________ NYAPATHY VIJAY, J Date: 23.09.2026 KLP