Andhra Pradesh High Court
WP/29753/2014 of Mendu Satyanarayana, S/o Rama Rao Vs The Government of India on 15 September 2025
HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3459] TUESDAY, THE SIXTEENTH DAY OF SEPTEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SMT JUSTICE SUMATHI JAGADAM WRIT PETITION NO: 29753/2014 Between: 1. MENDU SATYANARAYANA, S/O RAMA RAO, D.NO.65-11-2B,
APHC010547312014
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH
AT AMARAVATI
(Special Original Jurisdiction)
TUESDAY, THE SIXTEENTH DAY OF SEPTEMBER
TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE SMT JUSTICE SUMATHI JAGADAM
WRIT PETITION NO: 29753/2014
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. MENDU SATYANARAYANA, S/O RAMA RAO, D.NO.65-11-2B, BURAYYAKAPU STREET, MEHAR NAGAR, KAKINADA, EAST GODAVARI DISTRICT - 533 033. ANDHRA PRADESH.
...PETITIONER AND
1. THE GOVERNMENT OF INDIA, MINISTRY OF CONSUMER AFFAIRS, FOOD AND PUBLIC DISTRIBUTION, LEGAL METROLOGY DIVISION, KRISHI BHAVAN, NEW DELHI -110001. REPRESENTED BY IT'S SECRETARY.
2. THE JOINT SECRETARY, DEPARTMENT OF CONSUMER AFFAIRS, FOOD AND PUBLIC DISTRIBUTION, LEGAL METROLOGY DIVISION, KRISHI BHAVAN, NEW DELHI - 110001. REPRESENTED BY IT'S SECRETARY.
3. THE DIRECTOR, LEGAL METROLOGY, DEPARTMENT OF CONSUMER AFFAIRS, KRISHI BHAVAN, NEW DELHI - 110001.
...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 to issue an order, writ or direction more particularly in the nature of a writ of Mandamus under article 226 of the constitution of India declaring the order passed by the 2nd respondent in WM-30 (33)/2013 dated 23.6.2014 returning the application dated 01-10-2013 submitted by the petitioner for
JS,J W.P.No.29753/2014
approval of Government approved test center at Kakinada within the jurisdiction of Inspector, Legal Metrology, Kakinada on the ground that fresh policy decision will be taken regarding their locations, jurisdiction etc., as illegal, arbitrary, unjust and also violative of the provisions of AP Legal Metrology Act 2009 and the Rules made there under and set aside the same and consequently direct the 3rd respondent to receive and process the application dated 01.10.2013 submitted by the petitioner for approval of Government Test Center at Kakinada and forward the same to the 2nd respondent along with his recommendation and direct the 2nd respondent to pass orders thereon in accordance with Rule 5 of the Legal Metrology (Government Approved Test Center) Rules 2013 and pass IA NO: 1 OF 2014(WPMP 37167 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 suspend the operation or order of the 2nd respondent in WM-30 (33) / 2013 dated 23.6.2014 returning the application and direct the 3rd respondent to receive and to process the application dated 01.10.2013 submitted by the petitioner for approval of Government Test Center at Kakinada and forward the same to the 2nd respondent along with his recommendation and direct the 2nd respondent to pass orders thereon in accordance with Rule 5 of the Legal Metrology (Government Approved Test Center) Rules 2013 and pass IA NO: 4 OF 2014(WPMP 187011 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 Counsel for the Petitioner:
1. P SRIDHAR REDDY Counsel for the Respondent(S):
1. DEPUTY SOLICITOR GENERAL OF INDIA
JS,J W.P.No.29753/2014
The Court made the following ORDER:
Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the cause in the writ petition does not survive for adjudication.
Recording the submission of learned counsel for the petitioner, the Writ Petition is dismissed as infructuous. No order as to costs.
As a sequel, miscellaneous petitions pending, if any, shall stand closed.
__________________________ JUSTICE SUMATHI JAGADAM Date: 16.09.2025 KAS