Smt. Ghanta Suneetha vs. The Pr. Additional Director General

Held

The Court held that the writ petition had become infructuous because the order of provisional attachment, which was the subject of the challenge, had been revoked. Consequently, there was nothing further for the Court to decide in the matter. The Court reasoned that with the revocation of the attachment, the purpose of the writ petition was no longer extant. The ratio decidendi is that a writ petition challenging an action that has subsequently been rectified or withdrawn becomes infructuous and should be dismissed on that ground. The operative direction was to dismiss the writ petition as infructuous, with no order as to costs.

Facts

The petitioner, Smt. Ghanta Suneetha, filed a writ petition before the High Court of Andhra Pradesh at Amaravati. The petition challenged an order of provisional attachment. The respondent was the Pr Additional Director General and others. The specific tax period and the authority that passed the order of provisional attachment are not explicitly stated in the provided text. The amount in dispute is also not mentioned. The procedural history leading to the writ petition is not detailed.

Key Issues

1. Whether the writ petition has become infructuous due to the revocation of the provisional attachment order. This is a question of fact and procedure. The petitioner argued that the order of provisional attachment has been revoked. The respondent's arguments are not recorded in the judgment.