Telangana High Court
WP/21641/2000 of D.Subhash Babu, Vs The Chief General Manager, on 30 December 2005
SRI JUSTICE V.V.S.RAO WRIT PETITION No.21641 of 2000 30.12.2005 Between: D.Subhash Babu, S/o.late Hanumanth Rao … Petitioner AND The Chief General Manager, Ramagundam Area, RG-1, Godavarikhani, Karimnagar District. And another … Respondents THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE
Conclusion
THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE V.V.S.RAO
WRIT PETITION No.21641 of 2000
30.12.2005
Between:
D.Subhash Babu, S/o.late Hanumanth Rao
AND
The Chief General Manager, Ramagundam Area, RG-1, Godavarikhani, Karimnagar District.
And another
… Petitioner
… Respondents
THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE V.V.S.RAO
WRIT PETITION No.21641 of 2000
ORDER:
The petitioner is an employee of Singareni Collieries working at Godavarikhani. Hewas dismissed from service on 23.3.1998. He raised industrial dispute before theLabour Court in I.D.No.100 of 1999. While the industrial dispute was pending, hewas asked to vacate the quarters of the company bearing No.T2-164 near Bus standcolony. Therefore, he filed the present writ petition seeking a direction to the respondents not to evict the petitioner during the pendency of I.D.No.100 of 1999 onthe file of the Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour Court, Godavarikhani. This Court whileadmitting the writ petition on 10.11.2000 passed interim orders directing therespondents not to evict the petitioner on condition of petitioner paying rentsregularly. However, subsequently, by order dated 04.10.2002 made inW.V.M.P.No.2707 of 2002 having regard to the fact that I.D.No.100 of 1999 wasdismissed by the Labour Court. On 12.1.2001, this Court vacated the interim orderobserving that the petitioner has no right to continue in the post. Further, in thecounter affidavit filed by the Chief General Manager, Ramagundam Area-I, it isstated that the petitioner failed to pay the rents regularly and therefore, on 15.1.2001,the company took possession of the quarters. Though the counter affidavit is filedalong with W.V.M.P., in September 2000, no reply affidavit is filed. Therefore, thecounter averments stand unrebutted. As the petitioner already vacated the companyquarters and the possession was taken over by the company, nothing survives inthis writ petition.
The writ petition is accordingly dismissed. No costs.
December 30, 2005. (V.V.S. RAO,J)
YS
_____________
Page 1 of 1
Loading citations and judicial treatment…