N.Narayana Raju vs The State Of Andhra Pradesh
2021 Latest Caselaw 317 AP

      IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH : AMARAVATI


     HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ARUP KUMAR GOSWAMI, CHIEF JUSTICE
                                      &
                 HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE C. PRAVEEN KUMAR



                        WRIT APPEAL No.1588 of 2018

                     (Taken up through video conferencing)

N. Narayana Raju S/o late N. Suryanarayana Raju,
Aged about 50 years, Resident of D.No.9-11/8/9,
Sivajipalem, Visakhapatnam- 530000.

                                                          .. Appellant.
        Versus

1. The State of Andhra Pradesh, represented by
its Principal Secretary, Home Department,
Secretariat Buildings, Velagapudi, Amaravathi,
Guntur District, A.P. and others.

                                                      ..Respondents.

Counsel for the Appellant : Mr. Rama Rao Mavidi

Counsel for respondents No.1 to 3 : Government Pleader for Home.

Counsel for respondent No.4 : Government Pleader for Revenue.

ORAL JUDGMENT

Dt: 22.01.2021

per Arup Kumar Goswami, CJ

1. Heard Mr. Rama Rao Mavidi, learned Counsel for the appellant. Also

heard Mr. Maheshwar Reddy, learned Government Pleader for Home and

Mr. G.L. Nageswara Rao, learned Government Pleader for Revenue.

2. The submission of the learned Counsel for the appellant is that the

finding of the learned single Judge that the writ petition is liable to be

dismissed on the ground that the earlier writ petition was dismissed as

withdrawn without granting liberty to file fresh writ petition, is not borne

out of the record and therefore, the order to the extent of imposition of

cost may be set aside. The learned Counsel for the appellant has drawn

our attention to the order dated 15.09.2017 in W.P.No.30333 of 2017.

3. Primarily on the aforesaid ground, the writ petition, out of which the

present appeal arises, was dismissed holding that the same is devoid of

merits. Costs of Rs.5,000/- was also imposed as the same being a frivolous

writ petition, presumably, on the ground that without liberty being granted

in the earlier writ petition, recourse was taken by the writ petitioner again

to file the present writ petition. The learned single Judge noted that no

observation was made in the order passed in the earlier writ petition that

the writ petitioner was granted liberty to file fresh writ petition. Finding to

that effect as given by the learned single Judge is not correct as the order

itself demonstrates.

4. Considering the above, the impugned order so far as it relates to

imposition of costs upon the appellant is set aside.

5. This Writ Appeal is partly allowed to the extent indicated above. No

costs. As a sequel, all the pending miscellaneous applications, if any, shall

stand closed.

ARUP KUMAR GOSWAMI, CJ                          C. PRAVEEN KUMAR, J

                                                                            Nn

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ARUP KUMAR GOSWAMI, CHIEF JUSTICE & HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE C. PRAVEEN KUMAR

WRIT APPEAL No.1588 of 2018

(per Arup Kumar Goswami, CJ)

Dt: 22.01.2021

Nn