Telangana High Court
WP/18626/2002 of K. DWARAJANADHA REDDY Vs VISKHAPATNAM PORT TRUST, on 28 December 2004
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) TUESDAY, THE TWENTY EIGHTH DAY OF DECEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND FOUR PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE B.PRAKASH RAO WRIT PETITION NO : 18626 of 2002 Between: K. DWARAKANADHA REDDY s/o. Sri K. Suryanarayana Reddy
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD
(Special Original Jurisdiction)
TUESDAY, THE TWENTY EIGHTH DAY OF DECEMBERTWO THOUSAND AND FOUR
PRESENT
THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE B.PRAKASH RAOWRIT PETITION NO : 18626 of 2002
Between:
K. DWARAKANADHA REDDY s/o. Sri K. Suryanarayana Reddy Parapatla, Medikurthi (P.O) via Kalikiri 517 237 Chittoor District.
..... PETITIONER
AND
1 VISAKHAPATNAM PORT TRUST, rep. by its Chairman Visakhapatnam. Visakhapatnam.
2 VISAKHAPATNAM PORT TRUST rep. by its Chief Engineer, Engineering Department, Visakhapatnam Port Trust Visakhapatnam Visakhapatnam
.....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 any appropriate Writ, order or direction preferably a writ in the nature ofCertiorari, calling for the records relating to Proceedings No. PA/Ch./genl/2002dated 14/8/2002 issued by the Respondent Port Trust and quash the same as beingillegal, arbitrary and violative of Article 14 of the Constitution of India andconsequently direct the respondents to consider the petitioner's case to resume duty.
Counsel for the Petitioner:MR.P.VENUGOPAL
Counsel for the Respondent Nos.1and 2: MR.K.SRINIVASAMURTHY,STANDING COUNSEL FOR VISAKHAPATNAM PORT TRUST
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:
Heard both sides and at their request the main Writ Petition itself is taken upfor disposal.
The petitioner herein has been initially selected as Overseer and joined dutywith the respondents and subsequently, his services were terminated on the groundof unauthorized absence. Having regard to the illness, which he suffered, he went tothe village and could not possibly join duty in time and therefore, it cannot be saidthat there is any unauthorized absence. Since the respondent was not properlyconsidering the case of the petitioner, he earlier filed a Writ Petition No. 16962 of2000, which was disposed on 5.7.2002 directing the respondents to consider thecase of the petitioner. In terms thereof, now the respondents have passed ordersdated 14.8.2002. On a reading of the entire order, the order does not disclose anyreasons and it says that the case of the petitioner stands rejected. Apart from that theorder does not contain any reasons as to why the petitioner is not entitled for therelief as sought for.
In the circumstances, the Writ Petition is accordingly disposed of directing therespondents to consider the case of the petitioner afresh on merits and dispose ofthe same in accordance with law after giving an opportunity, within a period of sixweeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.
______________
ka
To
1. The Chairman, VISAKHAPATNAM PORT TRUST, Visakhapatnam. Visakhapatnam.
2. The Chief Engineer,VISAKHAPATNAM PORT
TRUST, Engineering Department, Visakhapatnam Port Trust Visakhapatnam Visakhapatnam
3. 2 CD copies.