Andhra Pradesh High Court
WP/31557/2018 of Kurapati Ravi Prakash Vs The State of Andhra Pradesh on 6 March 2026
HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3209] SATURDAY, THE SEVENTH DAY OF MARCH TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY SIX PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE NINALA JAYASURYA WRIT PETITION NO: 31557/2018 Between: 1. KURAPATI RAVI PRAKASH, S/O.LATE JACOB, AGED ABOUT 50 YEARS,
APHC010635782018
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH
AT AMARAVATI
(Special Original Jurisdiction)
SATURDAY, THE SEVENTH DAY OF MARCH
TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY SIX
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE NINALA JAYASURYA
WRIT PETITION NO: 31557/2018
Between:
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.
1. KURAPATI RAVI PRAKASH, S/O.LATE JACOB, AGED ABOUT 50 YEARS, R/O.APPANAVEEDU VILLAGE, PEDAPADU MANDAL, WEST GODAVARI DISTRICT, ANDHRA PRADESH.
...PETITIONER AND
1. THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH, REP.BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY DEPARTMENT OF ELECTRICITY A.P.SECRETARIAT BUILDINGS, VELAGAPUDI, AMARAVATHI, GUNTUR DISTRICT.
2. THE A P SOUTHERN POWER DISTRIBUTION COMPANY LIMITED, REP. BY ITS CHAIRMAN AND MANAGING DIRECTOR TIRUPATHI, CHITTOOR DISTRICT,
3. THE DIVISIONAL ENGINEER OPERATION, A.P. SOUTHERN POWER DISTRIBUTION COMPANY LIMITED GUDIVADA, KRISHNA DISTRICT.
4. THE ASSISTANT ENGINEER, A.P. SOUTHERN POWER DISTRIBUTION COMPANY LIMITED HANUMAN JUNCTION, KRISHNA DISTRICT.
...RESPONDENT(S):
NJS,J W.P No.31557 of 2018
Counsel for the Petitioner:
1. SAI GANGADHAR CHAMARTY Counsel for the Respondent(S):
1. V V SATISH (SC for APEPDCL)
2. GP FOR ENERGY (AP)
NJS,J W.P No.31557 of 2018
The Court made the following Order:
Mr. K R R Surya Dutt, learned counsel representing the learned counsel for the petitioner, states that the cause in the writ petition does not survive and the matter has become infructuous.
2. In view of the same, the Writ Petition is dismissed as infructuous. Interim orders, if any, granted on the earlier occasion shall stand vacated. No costs. Miscellaneous petitions pending, if any, shall stand closed. __________________________ JUSTICE NINALA JAYASURYA Date:07.03.2026 Ksj