A writ petition seeking enforcement of G.O.Ms.No. 194 was dismissed for non-prosecution by the Andhra Pradesh High Court; such dismissals for default do not constitute a decision on merits and do not create binding precedent or alter existing law on the underlying legal questions.
Summary
| Category | Data |
|---|---|
| Case Name | WP/18667/2017 of C. Balaiah Vs Andhra Pradesh Education and Welfare |
| CNR | APHC010234332017 |
| Date of Registration | 08-06-2017 |
| Decision Date | 30-10-2025 |
| Disposal Nature | DISMISSED FOR DEFAULT |
| Judgment Author | MAHESWARA RAO KUNCHEAM |
| Court | High Court of Andhra Pradesh |
| Precedent Value | No binding precedent; not a decision on merits |
| Type of Law | Constitutional law (Article 226 – Writ Jurisdiction) |
| Questions of Law | Whether respondents are legally required to implement G.O.Ms.No. 194 for revision of daily wages/remuneration |
| Facts as Summarised by the Court |
The petitioner sought a mandamus for implementation of G.O.Ms.No. 194 dated 7-10-2016 regarding wage revision. The Court noticed repeated absence of representation for the petitioner, indicating lack of interest in continuing the proceedings. |
Practical Impact
| Category | Impact |
|---|---|
| Binding On | Not binding; no legal finding made on the issues raised |
| Persuasive For | Not persuasive; does not address merits |
What’s New / What Lawyers Should Note
- The High Court dismissed the writ petition solely for default due to the absence of the petitioner and their counsel, without addressing or adjudicating the merits.
- Such a dismissal does not decide the questions of law raised in the petition or affect existing legal principles regarding enforcement of government orders through writs.
- Lawyers should note that only judgments rendered on merits establish legal precedent or clarify legal issues.
Summary of Legal Reasoning
- The Court noted that on the prior date (28.10.2025), there was no representation for the petitioner, and the matter was posted for dismissal.
- On the date of decision, there was again no appearance by the petitioner or counsel in both morning and afternoon sessions.
- The Court inferred that the petitioner was not interested in prosecuting the matter.
- Consequently, the writ petition was dismissed for default, with no order as to costs.
- All pending applications were also closed as a sequel to dismissal of the main petition.
Arguments by the Parties
Petitioner
No arguments recorded, as there was no representation for the petitioner on the relevant dates.
Respondent
No submissions recited in the order, as the matter was dismissed for default.
Factual Background
The petitioner filed a writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution seeking a mandamus requiring respondents to implement G.O.Ms.No. 194 Finance (HR.III) Department, dated 7-10-2016, and revise remuneration/daily wages from Rs. 6,700/- to Rs. 13,000/- per month. The Court took note that neither the petitioner nor their counsel appeared on scheduled dates, and ultimately dismissed the petition for non-prosecution.
Statutory Analysis
- The order references Article 226 of the Constitution of India, conferring writ jurisdiction.
- No statutory interpretation or substantive analysis was undertaken, as the petition was dismissed for default.
Dissenting / Concurring Opinion Summary
No concurring or dissenting opinions were recorded in the judgment.
Procedural Innovations
- The only procedural aspect is the sequence of posting for dismissal for non-prosecution after initial absence, followed by final dismissal after continued absence.
- No new procedural guidelines or innovations were introduced.
Alert Indicators
- ✔ Precedent Followed – The established practice of dismissing for default in the absence of prosecuting parties was followed.