Telangana High Court
WP/24262/2004 of S.Srinivasulu, Vs The A.P.S.R.T.C rep. by its on 27 December 2004
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) MONDAY, THE TWENTY SEVENTH DAY OF DECEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND FOUR PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE K.C. BHANU WRIT PETITION No. 24262 of 2004 Between: S.Srinivasulu, S/o.Janaiah, Aged 40 years, Occ:Business,
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD
(Special Original Jurisdiction)
MONDAY, THE TWENTY SEVENTH DAY OF DECEMBERTWO THOUSAND AND FOUR
PRESENT
THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE K.C. BHANU
WRIT PETITION No. 24262 of 2004
Between:
S.Srinivasulu, S/o.Janaiah,
Aged 40 years, Occ:Business, R/o.Miryalaguda, Nalgonda District.
AND
..... PETITIONER
1 The A.P.S.R.T.C rep. by its Regional Manager, Khammam.
2 The Depot Manager, APSRTC, Khammam.
.....RESPONDENTS
Petition under Article 226 of the constitution of India praying that in thecircumstances stated in the Affidavit filed herein the High Court will be pleased toissue a writ or direction preferably writ of mandamus declaring the proceedings ofthe 2nd respondent issued in Proc.No.MI/01/359(4)/01-KMM Dt.5.10.2004 as illegal,arbitrary contrary to record and violative of principles of natural justice andconsequently direct the respondent to release the difference amount as per therepresentation dt.30.9.2004 and pass such other or further orders.
Counsel for the Petitioner: MR.KOWTURU VINAYA KUMAR
Counsel for the Respondents: MR.V.T.M.PRASAD
The Court made the following:
Citations and Judicial Treatment
Cited by
0
Decisions in the index citing it
Cites
0
Decisions referred to
In this index
0
Of the decisions it cites
Overruled / Questioned
0
No negative treatment found
Loading the citing and cited decisions…
This judgment in the centre: on the left the decisions it cites, on the right the decisions citing it. Colour is the treatment; choose a decision to open it.
ORDER:
The grievance of the petitioner is that without his knowledge, thesurvey has been conducted with regard to distance betweenKhammam to Pangidi and therefore, it is not valid survey.
The learned standing counsel appearing for the respondentscontended that after conducting survey in between Khammam toPangidi, actual distance has been determined by the competentauthority and therefore, there are no grounds to interfere with theimpugned order.
The learned counsel for the petitioner contended that he would file anapplication before the 1[st] respondent requesting to conduct surveyagain in the presence of the writ petitioner so as to decide the actualhire amount, considering the distance between the above said twoplaces.
In the circumstances, without entering into the merits of the case, theWrit Petition is disposed of, with a direction to the petitioner to makean application before the 1[st] respondent for conducting survey andthereafter, within three weeks the 1[st] respondent shall conduct survey, with regard to distance betweenKhammam to Pangidi, after affording reasonable opportunity to thepetitioner. No costs.
Note:
Issue CC in two days
B/O
Dsr
ASSISTANT REGISTRAR
1. The Regional Manager, APSRTC,
Khammam
2. The Depot Manager, APSRTC,
Khammam
3. Two CD Copies.