WP/26325/2026 of M MOHAMMAD SHAKEER Vs THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH on 17 September 2026

1. M MOHAMMAD SHAKEER, S/O M.A. RAHIMAN, AGED ABOUT 55 YEARS, , EX-MINISTER, RESIDING AT DOOR NO, 10-6, LQBAL ROAD, KADIRI TOWN AND MANDAL, ANANTAPUR DISTRICT.- 515591

...PETITIONER AND

1. THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH, , REP. BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY,

(GENERAL ADMINISTRATION DEPARTMENT), SECRETARIAT BUILDINGS, VELAGAPUDI, GUNTUR DISTRICT.- 522238-

2. THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH, LEGAL SERVICES AUTHORITY REP BY IT'S, SECRETARY HIGH COURT OF A.P, NELAPADU , AMAVARATHI.-522239-

3. MATTAMADUGU RAJASEKHARA REDDY, S/O. M. AKKUL REDDY, R/O. AGRIL KARAVULA PALLI,

GORANTLA MANDAL, ANANTHAPUR DISTRICT.-515231-

4. MEKALACHERUVU RAMANA, S/O. M VENKATACHALAM, R/O. D.NO. 1/218, MEKALACHERUVU VILLAGE, N P KUNTA MANDAL, ANANTHAPUR DISTRICT.-515521-

5. MUDDANURU KUMARA SWAMY, S/O. M. RAMA SWAMY, EX- SERVICEMAN, LONDON MISSION COMPOUND, MUDDANUR

KADAPA DISTRICT-516380-

6. D S GANGADHAR, S/O. D SURYA PRAKASH, R/O. 9-183, PANDURANGA NAGAR,

HINDUPUR TOWN, ANANTAPUR DISTRICT.

7. Y PRABHAKAR, S/O. Y LAKSHMAN RAO, R/O. PENUKONDA ROAD, HINDUPUR TOWN, ANANTAPUR DISTRICT.-515201-

8. CEYLON AND INDIA GENERAL MISSION, LINCORPORATED UNDER THE REGT OFFICE AT 25 POTTERY ROAD, BANGALORE, - 560005- REP BY ITS POWER OF ATTORNEY HOLDERS CHAIRMAN, S.D. BHASKAR, S/O. S SATYADAS, BANGALORE, SECRETARY, N B SOLOMAN RAJU S/O M MANIKYA RAO

...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 a writ, order or direction more particularly one in the nature of mandamus declaring the action of the 2nd Respondent in passing the award dt. 14.03.2026 in AS No. 230/2012 is as illegal, arbitrary, violation of Article 14, 21 and 300-A of the Constitution of India, violation of principle of natural justice and contrary to the procedure prescribed under the law and consequently set aside the same 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 suspend the award dt. 14.03.2026 passed in AS No. 230/2012 by the 2 nd respondent, during the pendency of main writ petition, Counsel for the Petitioner:

1. P NARASIMHULU Counsel for the Respondent(S):

1. GP FOR GENERAL ADMINISTRATION The Court made the following:

ORDER :-(per Hon’ble Sri Justice Ravi Nath Tilhari)

This writ petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India seeking the following relief:- “….to issue a Writ, Order or direction more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus declaring the action of the 2nd Respondent in passing the award dt.14.03.2026 in A.S.No. 230 of 2012 is as illegal, arbitrary, violation of Article 14, 21 and 300-A of the Constitution of India, violation of principle of natural justice and contrary to the procedure prescribed under the law and consequently set aside the same, and pass such other order or orders….”

2. Heard Sri P.Narasimhulu, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri S. Lakshmi Narayana Reddy, learned Standing Counsel for the Andhra Pradesh Legal Services Authority (APLSA) appearing for respondent No.2.

3. Sri S. Lakshmi Narayana Reddy, learned Standing Counsel for the Andhra Pradesh Legal Services Authority (APLSA), appearing for respondent No.2, submits that the petitioner cannot challenge the Lok Adalat Award dated 14.03.2026 passed in A.S.No.230 of 2012 before the National Lok Adalat. He places reliance on the judgment of the High Court of Judicature at Hyderabad for the State of Telangana and the State of Andhra Pradesh in Vadiga Amose v. Vadiga Anjaneyulu and others1.

1 2014 (2) ALD 676 (DB).

4. Admittedly, the petitioner was not a party to the proceedings before the Lok Adalat.

5. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that he has filed an application for impleadment in the suit proceedings and the same is pending for consideration.

6. We are of the view that, since the application for impleadment was not allowed, the petitioner was neither a party to the suit proceedings nor to the proceedings before the Lok Adalat. Consequently, the challenge made before this Court by a non-party is not maintainable, in view of the judgment in Vadiga Amose (supra), wherein it has been held as under:

“We dismiss the writ petition as not maintainable at the instance of the petitioner, a non-party. However, we grant liberty, in case of any grievance, to take recourse as may be available under the law if so advised. It is well-settled law that a judgment is not binding on non-parties.”

7. In view of the above, the writ petition is dismissed as not maintainable at the instance of the petitioner, who was admittedly not a party to the proceedings before the Lok Adalat.

8. However, we grant liberty, in case of any grievance, to take recourse as may be available under the law if so advised. It is well-settled law that a judgment is not binding on non-parties.

No order as to costs.

As a sequel thereto, miscellaneous petitions, if any pending, shall also stand closed.

____________________ RAVI NATH TILHARI, J

_______________________ SUNITHA GANDHAM,J Date: 18.09.2026 RPD.

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE RAVI NATH TILHARI AND THE HONOURABLE SMT JUSTICE SUNITHA GANDHAM

(DISMISSED AS NOT MAINTAINABLE)

WRIT PETITION NO: 26325 of 2026

Date: 18.09.2026

RPD.

The petitioner is challenging the award dated 14-3-2006 in PLC No. 230 of 12 on the file of the National Lok Adalat, High Court of Andhra Pradesh, Amaravati. Sri S. Lakshmi Narayana Reddy, learned Standing Counsel for the Andhra Pradesh Legal Services Authority (APLSA), appearing for respondent No.2, submits that the petitioner cannot challenge the Lok Adalat award dated 14.03.2026 passed in A.S.No.230 of 2012 before the National Lok Adalat. He places reliance on the judgment of the High Court of Judicature at Hyderabad for the State of Telangana and the State of Andhra Pradesh in Vadiga Amose v. Vadiga Anjaneyulu and others2. Admittedly, the petitioner was not a party in the proceedings before the Lok Adalat. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that he has filed an application for impleadment in the suit proceedings, and the said application is pending and has not been decided.

We are of the view that since the application was not allowed, the petitioner was not a party in the suit, nor in the proceedings. Consequently, the challenge before the learned bench by a non-party is not sustainable in view of the judgment in [case citation], wherein it is held as under:

We dismiss the writ petition as not maintainable at the instance of the petitioner, a non-party. However, we grant liberty, in case of any grievance, to take recourse as may be available under the law if so advised. It is well-settled law that a judgment is not binding on non-parties.

2 2014(2) ALD 676 (DB)