Dasapalli Mahalakshmi vs Administrator A P E T Hyderabad 2 Others ...
2024 Latest Caselaw 6783 AP

Andhra Pradesh High Court - Amravati

Dasapalli Mahalakshmi vs Administrator A P E T Hyderabad 2 Others ... on 6 August, 2024

 APHC010238202012
                     IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH
                                   AT AMARAVATI                                 [3310]
                            (Special Original Jurisdiction)

                    TUESDAY ,THE SIXTH DAY OF AUGUST
                     TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FOUR

                                     PRESENT

            THE HONOURABLE DR JUSTICE K MANMADHA RAO

                        WRIT PETITION NO: 30631/2012

Between:

Dasapalli Mahalakshmi, East Godavari Dist                             ...PETITIONER

                                         AND

Administrator A P E T Hyderabad 2 Others and Others              ...RESPONDENT(S)

Counsel for the Petitioner:

   1. GODEY SATISH

Counsel for the Respondent(S):

   1. T BALAJI

   2. GP FOR ENDOWMENTS

The Court made the following:



ORDER:

The Writ Petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India,

seeking the following relief:

"....to issue a writ or order more particularly one in the nature of writ of certiorari calling for the records pertaining to and in connection with the common judgment Award Dt.01/08/2010 in O.A.NOs.2587 and batch i.e 2585, 2588, 2589, 2590, 2591, 2592, 2593 of 2010 on the file of the AP Endowments Tribunal, Hyderabad and quash the same and consequently declare the order of the 1st Respondent tribunal as null and void without jurisdiction contrary to the procedure contemplated under the AP Charitable and Hindu Religious institutions Endowments Act 1987 contrary to the order passed by this Hon'ble Court in W.P.M.P.No.23351 of 2009 in W.P.NO.1781/2009 and set aside the same."

2. On an earlier occasion, i.e., on 30.07.2024, there was no

representation on behalf of the petitioner and the matter was directed to be

listed on 06.08.2024 for hearing.

3. Today also, when the matter is taken up for hearing, there is no

representation for the petitioner. It seems that the petitioner has no interest in

prosecuting this Writ Petition.

4. Accordingly, this 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.

_________________________ DR. K. MANMADHA RAO, J.

Dated : 06.08.2024 TM