Telangana High Court
WP/23087/2006 of G. Veeraswamy Vs The Superintendent of Police, on 26 December 2006
MR JUSTICE B.PRAKASH RAO And THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE RAMESH RANGANATHAN WRIT PETITION NO.23087 of 2006 26th December 2006 Between: G.Veeraswamy, S/o.Late D.Narayana, 36 years, Working as Typist, O/o.Police Circle Office, Kodumuru, Kurnool District. …PETITIONER AND 1. The Superintendent
THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE B.PRAKASH RAO
And
THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE RAMESH RANGANATHAN
WRIT PETITION NO.23087 of 2006
Between:
26[th] December 2006
G.Veeraswamy, S/o.Late D.Narayana, 36 years, Working as Typist,O/o.Police Circle Office, Kodumuru, Kurnool District.
…PETITIONER
AND
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.
1. The Superintendent of Police, Kurnool.
And two others.
…RESPONDENTS
THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE B.PRAKASH RAO
And
THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE RAMESH RANGANATHAN
WRIT PETITION NO.23087 of 2006
ORDER:(Per the Hon’ble Mr Justice Ramesh Ranganathan)
Aggrieved by the order of the Andhra Pradesh AdministrativeTribunal, Hyderabad (‘the Tribunal’ for brevity) in V.M.A.No.772 of2006 in O.A.No.2259 of 2006 dated 30.08.2006; the present WritPetition is filed.
It is not necessary for us to note the facts in detail inasmuch asthe impugned order under challenge dated 29.03.2006 was directed tobe treated as a show cause notice and the petitioner-applicant wasdirected by the Tribunal to make a representation to the authorityconcerned in response thereto and the respondents were directed topass appropriate orders on considering the petitioner’s representationwithin a period of one month thereafter in accordance with the rulesand till such time final orders were passed as directed, the petitioner-applicant was directed to be continued in the present post of Typist. Since the interest of the petitioner is protected, inasmuch as pendingfinal orders being passed on the basis of his representation to the show cause notice, he has been directed to be continued as a Typist, we see no reason to exercise our discretion to interfere with the orderof the Tribunal. Suffice to hold that the petitioner shall submit adetailed representation within a period of four {4} weeks from todayand the respondents shall consider the contentions raised in therepresentation, pass a reasoned order and communicate the order tothe petitioner.
Subject to the above, the Writ Petition is disposed of. However,in the circumstances, without costs.
_________________
(B.PRAKASH RAO, J)
_______________________
(RAMESH RANGANATHAN, J)
26[th] December 2006RRB