Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI
Battu Devanand, A. Hari Haranadha Sarma, JJ.
V. Satti Raju, S/O Nallayya And Ors. - Appellants
Versus
The Union Of India, Ministry Of Surface Transport Rep. By Its Secretary, Sansad Marg. New Delhi And Ors. - Respondents
Writ Appeal No: 190 of 2025
Decided On : 29-12-2025
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. writ appeal filed against earlier order (Para 1) |
| 2. counsel representation and review of records (Para 2) |
| 3. res judicata applies to similar cases (Para 3) |
| 4. no grounds for appeal established (Para 4) |
| 5. writ appeal dismissed with no costs (Para 5 , 6) |
JUDGMENT :
Battu Devanand, J.
This writ appeal has been filed against the order, dated 18.08.2023 in W.P.No.21086 of 2023 passed by the learned Single Judge of this Court.
2. Heard Sri Dhanaraju Guntu, learned counsel for the appellants; Sri P. Ponna Rao, learned Deputy Solicitor General, appearing for 1st respondent; Ms. T. Sirisha, learned counsel, representing Sri Virupaksha Dattatreya Gouda, learned counsel appearing for the respondent Nos.2 and 3 and carefully perused the material available on record. No representation for 4th respondent.
3. While dismissing the writ petition, the learned single judge categorically stated that in the light of the dismissal of the similar batch of writ petitions by a common order, dated 12.07.2023 in W.P.Nos.15762 of 2017 and batch, the decision will operate as res judicata to bar a similar petition.
4. When this Court posed a query to the counsel appearing on either side whether common order, dated 12.07.2023 in W.P.Nos.15762 of 2017 and batch has become final or not, they replied that, that order has become final. When the earlier common order passed by this Court in similar matters has become final and following the same, the learned single Judge dismissed the writ petition under challenge before this Court, in our considered view, there are no grounds to file appeal against the said order. The appellants failed to make out any case warranting the interference of this Court either on facts or on law and as such, the writ appeal is liable to be dismissed.
5. Accordingly, this writ appeal is dismissed.
6. There shall be no order as to costs.
As a sequel, miscellaneous petitions pending, if any, shall stand closed.
The principle of res judicata applies, barring subsequent similar writ petitions when a prior similar order has become final.
The court emphasized proper procedural conduct in managing writ petitions, allowing parties to address their concerns directly with the original bench.
Appeal dismissed as infructuous due to compliance with single judge's order.
Writ petition dismissed as infructuous due to prior court order resolving the matter.
Writ appeal closed after confirming compliance with single judge order by both parties.
The main legal point established in the judgment is the need for affording the writ appellants an opportunity to file a detailed counter justifying their action and addressing all available grounds a....
The court determined the petitions were rendered infructuous, reflecting the principle that ongoing legal actions may lose relevance over time.
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
