PINNAMANENI MANOJ vs K BALAJI NAVEEN KUMAR Advocate - P V VENKATA RAVI SANKAR and Dr. P.B Reddy — WA /612/2025

Case under Letters Patent, 1866 Section 15. Disposed: Contested--DISMISSED NO COSTS on 31st March 2026.

CNR: APHC010241142025

CASE DISPOSED

Filing Number

WA /17805/2025

Filing Date

02-05-2025

Registration No

WA /612/2025

Registration Date

16-05-2025

Judge

BATTU DEVANAND , A. HARI HARANADHA SARMA

Coram

BATTU DEVANAND , A. HARI HARANADHA SARMA

Bench Type

Division Bench

Category

WA ( 27 )

Sub-Category

FOOD & AGRL.MARKET COMMITTEE (MISC.MATTERS) ( 16 )

Judicial Branch

WRIT Section

Decision Date

31st March 2026

Nature of Disposal

Contested--DISMISSED NO COSTS

Acts & Sections

10-LETTERS PATENT, 1866 Section 15

Petitioner(s)

PINNAMANENI MANOJ

Adv. J.V.PHANIDUTH

Venna Vinod,

Respondent(s)

K BALAJI NAVEEN KUMAR Advocate - P V VENKATA RAVI SANKAR and Dr. P.B Reddy

The State of Andhra Pradesh,

Adv. GP FOR SERVICES I

The Director,

Hearing History

Judge: BATTU DEVANAND , A. HARI HARANADHA SARMA

16-06-2025

FOR ADMISSION

01-12-2025

ADMISSION

04-11-2025

ADMISSION

21-10-2025

ADMISSION

23-09-2025

ADMISSION

Orders

31-03-2026
BATTU DEVANAND,A. HARI HARANADHA SARMA

Summary: The High Court of Andhra Pradesh dismissed a writ appeal filed 879 days late by third-party candidates challenging a single judge's order on veterinary recruitment selection procedures. The court found no sufficient grounds to condone the delay, as the appellants failed to provide compelling reasons beyond claiming they discovered the orders when their salary increments were stopped, and the original matter's issues had already been addressed in subsequent contempt proceedings. Consequently, both the delay condonation application and the writ appeal itself were dismissed with no order as to costs. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.

casestatus.in Summary

Summary: The High Court of Andhra Pradesh dismissed a writ appeal filed 879 days late by third-party candidates challenging a single judge's order on veterinary recruitment selection procedures. The court found no sufficient grounds to condone the delay, as the appellants failed to provide compelling reasons beyond claiming they discovered the orders when their salary increments were stopped, and the original matter's issues had already been addressed in subsequent contempt proceedings. Consequently, both the delay condonation application and the writ appeal itself were dismissed with no order as to costs. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.

Browse Related Cases

Cases under same legislation

Explore other courts

Search Another Case