Andhra Pradesh High Court
WP/11803/2014 of M.Subramanyam, S/o M.Mara Swamy Vs Sri Bhramaramba Mallikarjuna Swamy Devasthanam on 31 December 2024
HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3310] TUESDAY , THE THIRTY FIRST DAY OF DECEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FOUR PRESENT THE HONOURABLE DR JUSTICE K MANMADHA RAO WRIT PETITION NO: 11803/2014 Between: M.subramanyam, S/o M.mara Swamy ...PETITIONER AND Sri
APHC010052952014
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction)
[3310]
TUESDAY ,THE THIRTY FIRST DAY OF DECEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FOUR
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE DR JUSTICE K MANMADHA RAOWRIT PETITION NO: 11803/2014
Between:
M.subramanyam, S/o M.mara Swamy ...PETITIONER
AND
Sri Bhramaramba Mallikarjuna Swamy Devasthanam ...RESPONDENT
Counsel for the Petitioner:
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. G RAVI MOHAN
Counsel for the Respondent:
1. A SREEKANTH REDDY(SC FOR ENDOW RS)
The Court made the following Order:
This Writ Petition is filed, under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, seeking the following relief:
“….to issue an order, direction or writ more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus declaring the action of the respondents in not releasing the final payment of the petitioner for the work done by the petitioner in pursuance of the agreement dated 09.10.2004 and 16.06.2006 is illegal, arbitrary and unjust and consequently direct the respondents to pay the final payment to the petitioner the work done by the petitioner in pursuance of the agreement dated 09.10.2004 and 16.06.2006….”
2. On verifying the proceeding sheet, it is observed that, on an earlier occasion i.e., on 26.11.2024, the matter was adjourned at request of learned counsel for the petitioner and directed to be posted on 03.12.2024 on a condition that “further time will not be granted”.
3. Today, when the matter is taken up for hearing, none appeared on behalf of the petitioner either personally or through advocate. It seems that the petitioner is not interested to prosecute the case.
4. Therefore, the Writ Petition is dismissed as non-prosecution. There shall be no order as to costs.
As a sequel, miscellaneous applications pending, if any, shall stand closed.
BMS
__________________________
Dr. K. MANMADHA RAO, J