Induru Rajasekhar Reddy vs The A P Endowments Tribunal Rep By
2024 Latest Caselaw 8532 AP

Andhra Pradesh High Court - Amravati

Induru Rajasekhar Reddy vs The A P Endowments Tribunal Rep By on 17 September, 2024

APHC010032572012
                   IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH
                                 AT AMARAVATI             [3310]
                          (Special Original Jurisdiction)

      TUESDAY ,THE SEVENTEENTH DAY OF SEPTEMBER
           TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FOUR

                               PRESENT

      THE HONOURABLE DR JUSTICE K MANMADHA RAO

                     WRIT PETITION NO: 24368/2012

Between:

Induru Rajasekhar Reddy, Nellore Dist.                   ...PETITIONER

                                  AND

The A P Endowments Tribunal Rep By                  ...RESPONDENT(S)
Chairman Hyd 2otrs and Others

Counsel for the Petitioner:

   1. K SRINIVAS

Counsel for the Respondent(S):

   1. GP FOR ENDOWMENTS

   2. MIAPURAM SRINIVAS RAO

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, order or direction more
          particularly in the Writ of Mandamus declaring the action
          of the 1st respondent in allowing the judgment (award) in
          O.A.No.1409/2010 dated 07.07.2012 filed by the 2 nd and
          3rd respondents is illegal, arbitrary and violation of
            Principles of Natural Justice and consequently set aside
           the same and pass such other order or orders as this
           Hon'ble Court may deem fit and proper in the
           circumstances of the case."

      2.       On the last two occasions i.e., 27.08.2024 & 10.09.2024

Sri K.Srinivas, learned counsel for the petitioner appeared and

sought time. At his request, the matter was adjourned to 17.09.2024.

Today, when the matter is called, learned counsel for the petitioner

further requested time on the ground that he is handicapped with the

bundle.

      3.       Though the matter is of the year 2012, the learned

counsel for the petitioner time and again sought time. Even though,

this Court granted ample time to hear the matter, learned counsel for

the petitioner seeks further time, which shows the petitioner has no

interest in prosecuting this Writ Petition.

      4.       Accordingly, this Writ Petition is dismissed for non-

prosecution and dismissed for default as well. There shall be no

order as to costs.

      As a sequel, miscellaneous applications pending, if any, shall

stand closed.


                                         _________________________
                                          DR. K. MANMADHA RAO, J.

ANS

THE HONOURABLE DR JUSTICE K MANMADHA RAO

WRIT PETITION NO: 24368/2012

Date: 17.09.2024

ANS