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.

Case disposed

CNR: APHC010241142025

Filing Number

WA/17805/2025

Filing Date

02-May-2025

Registration No

WA/612/2025

Registration Date

16-May-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

31-Mar-2026

Nature of Disposal

Contested--DISMISSED NO COSTS

Last updated 28-Apr-2026

Acts & Sections

Letters Patent, 1866 Section 15

Petitioner(s)

  1. 1.PINNAMANENI MANOJ

    Adv. J.V.PHANIDUTH

  2. 2.Venna Vinod,

Respondent(s)

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

  2. 2.The State of Andhra Pradesh,

    Adv. GP FOR SERVICES I

  3. 3.The Director,

Case History

  1. Case disposedDisposed

  2. 31-Mar-2026

    Battu Devanand,a. Hari Haranadha SarmaView PDF

  3. 31-Mar-2026

    Battu Devanand,a. Hari Haranadha SarmaView PDF

    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.

  4. 29-Dec-2025

    Battu Devanand,a. Hari Haranadha SarmaView PDF

  5. 01-Dec-2025

    Admission

    Battu Devanand , A. Hari Haranadha Sarma

  6. 10-Nov-2025

    Battu Devanand,a. Hari Haranadha SarmaView PDF

  7. 04-Nov-2025

    Admission

    Battu Devanand , A. Hari Haranadha Sarma

  8. 28-Oct-2025

    Battu Devanand,a. Hari Haranadha SarmaView PDF

  9. 21-Oct-2025

    Admission

    Battu Devanand , A. Hari Haranadha Sarma

  10. 23-Sep-2025

    Battu Devanand,a. Hari Haranadha SarmaView PDF

  11. 23-Sep-2025

    Admission

    Battu Devanand , A. Hari Haranadha Sarma

  12. 02-Sep-2025

    Battu Devanand,a. Hari Haranadha SarmaView PDF

  13. 02-Sep-2025

    Admission

    Battu Devanand , A. Hari Haranadha Sarma

  14. 19-Aug-2025

    Admission

    Battu Devanand , A. Hari Haranadha Sarma

  15. 05-Aug-2025

    Battu Devanand,a. Hari Haranadha SarmaView PDF

  16. 30-Jul-2025

    Admission

    B Krishna Mohan , A. Hari Haranadha Sarma

  17. 16-Jul-2025

    B Krishna Mohan,a. Hari Haranadha SarmaView PDF

  18. 16-Jul-2025

    Admission

    B Krishna Mohan , A. Hari Haranadha Sarma

  19. 02-Jul-2025

    B Krishna Mohan,a. Hari Haranadha SarmaView PDF

  20. 02-Jul-2025

    Admission

    B Krishna Mohan , A. Hari Haranadha Sarma

  21. 25-Jun-2025

    B Krishna Mohan,a. Hari Haranadha SarmaView PDF

  22. 16-Jun-2025

    Ninala Jayasurya,tarlada Rajasekhar RaoView PDF

  23. 16-Jun-2025

    First hearing

    Initial hearing scheduled

  24. 02-May-2025

    Case filed

    Registration No. WA/612/2025

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.

Explore other courts

District Courts Supreme Court
Search Another Case