Telangana High Court
WP/6423/2003 of P.SANJEEV RAO,NARSAPURMEDAK Vs M.D.,APSRTC,MUSHEERABAD,HYDAND 3 ORS on 30 December 2021
THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) THURSDAY, THE THIRTIETH DAY OF DECEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY ONE PRESENT THE HON'BLE SMT JUSTICE P.MADHAVI DEVI WRIT PETITION NO: 642 3 oF 2003 Between: P.Sanjeev Rao, S/o.Chinnaiah, Occ: Ex-Conductor R/o.18-"18, Opp:
HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD(Special Original Jurisdiction)
THURSDAY, THE THIRTIETH DAY OF DECEMBER
TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY ONE
PRESENT
THE HON'BLE SMT JUSTICE P.MADHAVI DEVI
WRIT PETITION NO: 642 3 oF 2003
Between:
P.Sanjeev Rao, S/o.Chinnaiah, Occ: Ex-Conductor [R/o.18-"18, ][Opp: ][S.T.Hostel,]Narasapur Post & Ir,4andal, Medak 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 Managing Director, [A.P.S.R.T.C., ][lr4usheerabad, Hyderabad.]
2. The Regional Manager, [A.P.S ][R.T.C., ][Sangareddy Region, ][Sanga ][Reddy,]Medak District.Medak District.
3. Depot Manager, A.P.S.R.T.C., [Dubbaka, Medak ][District.]
4. Personal officer, [A.P.S.R'T.C., Medak ][Region ][Sanga Reddy, Medak ][District.]
..,RESPONDENTS
Petition under Article [226 ][of ][the ][constitution ][of ][lndia ][praying ][that in ][the]circumstances stated [in ][the ][affidavit ][filed ][therewithl ][the ][High Court may ][be ][pleased]to issue a writ of [Mandamus ][or ][any other ][appropriate ][writ ][or ][order ][or ][direction]declaringtheactionoftherespondentsinissuingimpugnedproceedingsNo.(P)785(112) 2OO2 dt.24.2.2003 [is illegal arbitrary ][and ][violative ][of ][principle of ][natural ][iustice]andagainstjudgmentpassedinW.P'No.1381Bl2oo2andSelasidetheSameconsequently direct [the ][respondent ][to ][pay ][the ][salary at ][the ][basic rate ][of ][Rs.4,855/-.]
Counsel for the Petitioner: [SRI ][VADDEMANI SRINIVAS]
Counsel for the [Respondents: ][SRI ][N. ][PRAVEEN REDDY, ][S'C' ][FOR ][T'S'R'T'C]
The Court made the [following: ][ORDER]
THE HONOURABLE SMT. JUSTICIi I'. MADHAVI DEVI
WRIT PETITION NO.6423 OF 2OO3
ORDBR
There was no representation for the petitioner or his counselwhen the matter was taken up on 23.12.2021. It was accordinglydirected to be listed 'for dismissal' on30.12.2021.when the matter was taken up on 23.12.2021. It was accordinglydirected to be listed 'for dismissal' on30.12.2021.
2.
2. Today, yet again, there is no representalion for the petitioner orhis counsel when the rnatter is callcd. Sri C. Prasl-rantl'r. lcarnedcounsel representing Sri N. Praveen l{edd1'. lcarned counsels lbr thelosponclcnt is plcscnt.
3. 'l he Writ Petition is accordingly clismissccl fbr non-prosecution
4. Pending miscellaneous petitions, il' any, in this Writ Petitionshall also stand dismissed. No costs.
SD/.K.ONESIMASSISTANT [REGISTRAR]GSECTION OFFICER
//TRUE COPY//
To,
1. One CC to SRI [VADDEMANI SRINIVAS, Advocate ][IOPUC]]
2. One CC to SRI [N. ][PRAVEEN REDDY, ][S.C ][for ][T'S'R ][T ][C' ][[OPUC]]
3. Two CD CoPies.
4. One Spare [CoPY.]
t\4P
S*n;rg
I
HIGH COURT
DATED:3011212021
A;g Sf.4tt.(t'^. [?n]1)27 '!'' ' [i' ]['']ORDER.:I '...;i-. WP.No.6423 of 2003- [,:-]
DISMISSING THE WRIT PETIT!ONFOR NON.PROSECUTIONWITHOUT COSTS
\?"${x