AV SESHANNA v. MANAGING DIRECTOR VIJAYAWADA
Case at a glance
Provisions considered
- Constitution of India arts. 14, 21, 226
- Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 s. 151
Judgment
Counsel for the Respondents: ARAVALA RAMA RAO(SC FOR APSRTC KKAC) The Court made the following order: 3 HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE MAHESWARA RAO KUNCHEAM WRIT PETITION No.36058 OF 2017 ORDER: The instant writ petition has been filed by the petitioner under Article 226 of Constitution of India seeking the following main prayer:
to issue an appropriate writ or any other order or direction particularly one in the nature of writ of mandamus declaring the action of the respondents in not releasing the pension to the petitioner is illegal, arbitrary and violation of Articles 14 and 21 of the Constitution of India and consequently direct the respondents to release the pension to the petitioner and pass….
When the matter is taken up for hearing, learned counsel for the petitioner as well as learned Standing Counsel jointly submits that after filing the writ petition, the writ petitioner died and he is no more. However, learned counsel for the petitioner further submits that leaving it open to the legal representatives of the petitioner to work out their legal remedies, the writ petition may be dismissed as withdrawn.
Permission as sought for is accorded and the writ petition is accordingly dismissed as withdrawn. 4
There shall be no order as to costs. Miscellaneous petitions pending if any, shall stand closed. Date:31.12.2025 Rns ______________________________ MAHESWARA RAO KUNCHEAM, J 5 THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE MAHESWARA RAO KUNCHEAM WRIT PETITION No.36058 of 2017 Date:31.12.2025 Rns
Questions this judgment answers
Which statutory provisions did this judgment involve?
Constitution of India — arts. 14, 21, 226; Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 — s. 151.
Which court decided this case, and when?
Andhra Pradesh High Court, on 31 Dec 2025. The bench was MAHESWARA RAO KUNCHEAM.
Precedent status how later indexed judgments have treated this case
No known negative treatment found in the Courts & Cases corpus.
This is a result about the indexed corpus, not a finding that the judgment remains good law. Coverage may be incomplete.