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
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
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
FOR ADMISSION
ADMISSION
ADMISSION
ADMISSION
ADMISSION
| Date | Purpose | Result |
|---|---|---|
| 16-06-2025 | FOR ADMISSION | |
| 01-12-2025 | ADMISSION | |
| 04-11-2025 | ADMISSION | |
| 21-10-2025 | ADMISSION | |
| 23-09-2025 | ADMISSION |
Orders
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.
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