Andhra Pradesh High Court
WP/8880/2013 of SRI VEERA VENKATA SATYANARAYANA, REP.BY PROP., VISAKHAPATNAM Vs THE STATE OF A.P.,REP.BY SECRETARY, ERC.,HYDERABAD,& 4 OTRS. on 4 March 2026
HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3209] THURSDAY, THE FIFTH DAY OF MARCH TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY SIX PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE NINALA JAYASURYA WRIT PETITION NO: 8880/2013 Between: 1. SRI VEERA VENKATA SATYANARAYANA, REP.BY PROP., VISAKHAPATNAM,
APHC010307792013
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH
AT AMARAVATI
(Special Original Jurisdiction)
THURSDAY, THE FIFTH DAY OF MARCH
TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY SIX
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE NINALA JAYASURYA
WRIT PETITION NO: 8880/2013
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. SRI VEERA VENKATA SATYANARAYANA, REP.BY PROP., VISAKHAPATNAM, MODERN RICE MILL REP BY ITS PROPRIETOR V. V. V. SATYANARAYANA, MADDI VILLAGE, PADMANABHAM MANDAL, VISAKHAPATNAM DISTRICT.
...PETITIONER AND
1. THE STATE OF A P REP BY SECRETARY ERC HYDERABAD 4 OTRS, REP BY ITS SECRETARY, ERC HYDERABAD
2. THE SUPERINTENDENT ENGINEER OPERATIONS, APEPDCL, VISAKHAPATNAM
3. THE DIVISIONAL ELECTRICAL ENGINEER, OPERATIONS, ZONE III VISAKHAPATNAM
4. THE ASST ENGINEER OPERATIONS, PADMANABHAM, VISAKHAPATNAM
5. THE ASST DIV ENGINEER OPERATIONS, APEPDCL, BHIMILI
...RESPONDENT(S):
NJS,J W.P No.8880 of 201
Counsel for the Petitioner:
1. D JAIPAL REDDY Counsel for the Respondent(S):
1. V V SATISH (SC for APEPDCL)
2. P ANAND SESHU (SC FOR APEPDCL)
3. GP FOR IRRIGATION & COMM AREA DEV
NJS,J W.P No.8880 of 201
The Court made the following Order:
On 03.03.2026, there was no representation on behalf of the petitioner and matter was directed to be listed under the caption “for Dismissal”.
2. Though the matter is listed under the caption “for Dismissal”, there is no representation on behalf of the petitioner, even today also.
3. Under the said circumstances, this Court is inclined to dismiss the writ petition for non-prosecution.
4. Accordingly, this Writ Petition is dismissed for non-prosecution. No costs. Miscellaneous petitions pending, if any, shall stand closed. __________________________ JUSTICE NINALA JAYASURYA Date:05.03.2026 Ksj