JUDGMENT Kalyan Jyoti Sengupta, C.J. 1. Without going into the merit in the appeal, we notice that the order of the Hon'ble Trial Judge is void ab initio since it has been passed on a proceeding not a legally instituted. In the writ petition, the first respondent therein has been arrayed as the Government of Andhra Pradesh represented by its Principal Secretary, Mines and Geology, Secretariat, Hyderabad. In our view, the Government of Andhra Pradesh is not sui juris, it is the State of Andhra Pradesh, because of Article 300 of the Constitution of India that provides as follows: "300. Suits and proceedings.- (1) The Government of India may sue or be sued by the name of the Union of India and the Government of a State may sue or be sued by the name of the State and may, subject to any provisions which may be made by an Act of Parliament or of the Legislature of such State enacted by virtue of powers conferred by this Constitution, sue or be sued in relation to their respective affairs in the like cases as the Dominion of India and the corresponding Provinces or the corresponding Indian States might have sued or been sued if this Constitution had not been enacted. (2) If at the commencement of this Constitution- (a) any legal proceedings are pending to which the Dominion of India is a party, the Union of India shall be deemed to be substituted for the Dominion in those proceedings; and (b) any legal proceedings are pending to which a Province or an Indian State is a Party, the corresponding State shall be deemed to be substituted for the Province or the Indian State in those proceedings." 2. The Hon'ble Trial Judge was not assisted properly and it appears that the Hon'ble Trial Judge was called upon to pass order in this proceeding. Though the grievance and prayer in the writ petition was for a declaration that the act and action of the State of Andhra Pradesh is illegal, it was not a party therein. Therefore, the order of the Hon'ble Trial Judge is a nullity. On that ground, we set aside the said order. 3. We were inclined to dismiss the writ petition also. However, it is not proper for us to do so as the writ petition is pending before the Hon'ble Judge. Therefore, the order of the Hon'ble Trial Judge is a nullity. On that ground, we set aside the said order. 3. We were inclined to dismiss the writ petition also. However, it is not proper for us to do so as the writ petition is pending before the Hon'ble Judge. It would be open for the first respondent/writ petitioner to make an application for taking suitable measure for removal of above defect within seven days from the date of receipt of this order, and then apply for interim relief in accordance with law. We make it clear in the event the first respondent/writ petitioner fails to take step to remove above legal defect within the time as above, the writ petition is liable to be dismissed. 4. The writ appeal is accordingly allowed. Pending miscellaneous petitions, if any, shall stand closed. No order as to costs. Appeal allowed