Andhra Pradesh High Court
WP/22326/2014 of G. Gangadhara Rao, Vs The State of Andhra Pradesh on 27 July 2026
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH (Special Original Jurisdiction) TUESDAY, THE 28 THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE RAVI CHEEMALAPATI WRIT PETITION NO: 22326/2014 Between: 1. G. GANGADHARA RAO,, W/O MAHAMKALI, AGED ABOUT 38 YEARS, R/O MERLAPALEM, EAST GODAVARI DISTRICT. 2. KOPPISETTI
APHC010040102014
IN THE H
(
TUESDA
THE HONOURAB
WRIT
Between:
1. G. GANGADHARA
YEARS, R/O MERLAP
2. KOPPISETTI VENKA
ABOUT 36 YEARS, N
GUBBALAVARIPALEM
DISTRICT.
1. THE
STATE OF
SECRETARY, PROH
HYDERABAD.
2. THE COMMISSIONER
ANDHRA PRADESH,
3. P SRIDEVI, W/O NOT
YEARS,
SUPE
AMALAPURAM DIVIS
GODAVARI DISTRICT
4. N V RAMANACHARY
AGED ABOUT 55 YE
KOTHAPETA
CIRC
W.P.N
HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH
AT AMARAVATI
(Special Original Jurisdiction)
AY, THE 28th DAY OF JULY 2026
PRESENT
BLE SRI JUSTICE RAVI CHEEMALAPA
T PETITION NO: 22326/2014
RAO,, W/O MAHAMKALI, AGED A
PALEM, EAST GODAVARI DISTRICT.
ATESWARA RAO,, S/O MUSALAYY
OWKARNAMA, R/O D.NO. 3-39, KAND
M, KOTHAPETA MANDAL, EAST G
...PETIT
AND
ANDHRA PRADESH, REP
BY
P
HIBITION & EXCISE DEPT. SECR
R, PROHIBITION & EXCISE, GOVERN
HYDERABAD.
T KNOWN TO THE PETITIONER, AGE
ERINTENDENT,
PROHIBITION
&
SION, EXCISE OFFICE, AMALAPURA
T.
YULU, S/O NOT KNOWN TO THE PET
EARS, INSPECTOR, PROHIBITION &
CLE,
PROHIBITION
&
EXCISE
RC,J
No.22326 of 2014
ATI
BOUT 38
YA, AGED
DRIGA H/O
GODAVARI
TIONER(S)
PRINCIPAL
RETARIAT,
NMENT OF
ED ABOUT
EXCISE,
AM, EAST
TITIONER,
& EXCISE,
OFFICE,
RC,J
W.P.No.22326 of 2014
KOTHAPETA, EAST GODAVARI DISTRICT.
...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 toto issue a writ, order or direction especially in the nature of Writ of Mandamus or any other appropriate writ declaring the inaction of the respondents Nos. 1 & 2 in initiating any action pursuant to the representation, dated 16-06-2014 against the respondents 3 and 4, as illegal, arbitrary and Art 14, 19 (1) (g) and 21 of the Constitution of India and consequently direct the respondents 1 and 2 to initiate necessary action against the respondents 3
and 4 pursuant to the representation/complaint dated 16-06-2014 and pass.
IA NO: 1 OF 2014(WPMP 28009 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 be pleased to direct the respondents No. 1 and 2 to consider the representation dated 16- 06-2014, pending disposal of the above Writ Petition and pass.
Counsel for the Petitioner(S):
1.T V JAGGI REDDY
Counsel for the Respondent(S):
1.GP FOR PROHIBITION & EXCISE (AP)
2.T V JAGGI REDDY
The Court made the following:
RC,J
W.P.No.22326 of 2014
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.
ORDER
Despite listing the mater under the caption “for dismissal”, there is no representation for petitioners. This indicates that the petitioners have no interest in prosecuting the mater.
2. Therefore, the writ petition is dismissed for non prosecution. There shall be no order as to costs.
Pending miscellaneous petitions, if any, shall stand closed.
____________________________________ JUSTICE RAVI CHEEMALAPATI 28TH July, 2026.
RR