GOSULA VIJENDRANATH REDDY vs STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH Advocate - GP FOR PROHIBITION EXCISE — WP/14463/2026

Case under Constitution of India Section 226. Disposed: Contested--DISMISSED AS INFRUCTUOUS on 28th May 2026.

Case disposed

CNR: APHC010280642026

Filing Number

WP/22465/2026

Filing Date

14-May-2026

Registration No

WP/14463/2026

Registration Date

14-May-2026

Judge

Y. Lakshmana Rao

Coram

Y. Lakshmana Rao

Bench Type

Single Bench

Category

WP ( 28 )

Sub-Category

EXCISE (MISC.MATTERS) ( 15 )

Judicial Branch

WRIT Section

Decision Date

28-May-2026

Nature of Disposal

Contested--DISMISSED AS INFRUCTUOUS

Last updated 01-Jun-2026

Acts & Sections

Constitution of India Section 226

Petitioner(s)

  1. 1.GOSULA VIJENDRANATH REDDY

    Adv. C SUBODH

Respondent(s)

  1. 1.STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH Advocate - GP FOR PROHIBITION EXCISE

  2. 2.The Commissioner,

  3. 3.The Deputy Commissioner,

  4. 4.The District Prohibition and Excise Officer,

  5. 5.The Station House Officer,

Case History

  1. Case disposedDisposed

  2. 28-May-2026

    Y. Lakshmana RaoView PDF

    Case Summary: WP 14463/2026 The High Court of Andhra Pradesh dismissed the writ petition filed by Gosula Vijendranath Reddy against the Prohibition and Excise Department as infructuous. Both the Government Pleader and petitioner's counsel agreed the matter had become infructuous, leading to dismissal with no order as to costs. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.

  3. 28-May-2026

    Admission (Excise)

    Y. Lakshmana Rao

  4. 14-May-2026

    Y. Lakshmana RaoView PDF

  5. 14-May-2026

    Y. Lakshmana RaoView PDF

  6. 14-May-2026

    First hearing

    Initial hearing scheduled

  7. 14-May-2026

    Case filed

    Registration No. WP/14463/2026

casestatus.in Summary

Case Summary: WP 14463/2026 The High Court of Andhra Pradesh dismissed the writ petition filed by Gosula Vijendranath Reddy against the Prohibition and Excise Department as infructuous. Both the Government Pleader and petitioner's counsel agreed the matter had become infructuous, leading to dismissal 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