SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2025 Supreme(Online)(AP) 8775

HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH
NYAPATHY VIJAY, J
Malkireddy Siva Krishna Reddy – Appellant
Versus
The State Of Andhra Pradesh – Respondent
Writ Petition No: 9603/2025



Advocates:
For the Appellants/Petitioners: Rajulapati Praveen Kumar
For the Respondents: GP MUNCIPAL ADMN AND URBAN DEV AP

The dismissal of a writ petition as infructuous when the subject matter becomes moot due to subsequent withdrawal of an agreement.

Headnote:In this case, the petitioner sought a Writ of Mandamus under Article 226 of the Constitution to challenge the action of a respondent issuing a circular appointing auditors contrary to provisions in Sec.27(2) of the AP Mutually Aided Cooperative Societies Act, 1995. The court observed that the respondents had withdrawn from the contract, resulting in the petition being dismissed as infructuous. The main issues were the legality of the circular and the authority of the respondents in this matter. The court ruled that no cause survives for the petition, leading to its dismissal.

Table of Content
1. petition filed under article 226 challenging an administrative action. (Para 1)
2. circumstances leading to withdrawal of auditors from contract. (Para 2)
3. final dismissal of the petition due to lack of cause. (Para 3)

ORDER:

1. This Writ Petition is filed by the petitioner, under Article 226 of the Constitution of India seeking Mandamus, for the following relief:

“…to issue a Writ of Mandamus, or any other appropriate writ, order or direction, declaring the action of the 3rd respondent in issuing Circular in Roc.No.01/MEPMA/2019-20/Community Auditors, dated 01.04.2025 appointing the respondents 4 & 5 to conduct financial audit for two years as illegal, arbitrary, without jurisdiction and contrary to the provisions contemplated under Sec.27(2) of AP Mutually Aided Cooperative Societies Act , 1995 and set aside the same and pass…”

2. At the time of hearing, learned Standing counsel for the respondent No.2 has submitted that the respondent Nos.4 & 5 have addressed letters on 19.04.2025, seeking for withdrawal from the contract agreement executed for auditing of Self- Help Groups (SHG’s), and the letters addressed by the respondent Nos.4 & 5 were passed on to the Court and as well as the consequential proceedings issued by the respondent No.2, withdrawing from the contract were also enclosed.

3. In that view of the matter, no cause survives and the Writ Petition is dismissed, as infructuous. There shall be no order as to costs. As a sequel, pending applications, if any, shall stand closed.

Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

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

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top