Telangana High Court
WP/28937/2009 of Mindi Rama Rao, Vs The Govt. of A.P. rep by its Principal Secretary, on 31 December 2009
COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) THURSDAY, THE THIRTY FIRST DAY OF DECEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND NINE PRESENT THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE P.S. NARAYANA WRIT PETITION No.28937 OF 2009 Between: Mindi Rama Rao, S/o.Mindi Krishnam and others ..... PETITIONERS
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.
Conclusion
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD(Special Original Jurisdiction)
THURSDAY, THE THIRTY FIRST DAY OF DECEMBERTWO THOUSAND AND NINE
PRESENT
THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE P.S. NARAYANA
WRIT PETITION No.28937 OF 2009
Between:
Mindi Rama Rao, S/o.Mindi Krishnam and others
..... PETITIONERS
AND
The Government of Andhra Pradesh,Represented by its Principal Secretary,Industries and Commerce (INF) Department,Secretariat, Hyderabad and others
....RESPONDENTS
The Court made the following:
THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE P.S. NARAYANA
WRIT PETITION No.28937 OF 2009
ORDER:
Heard the learned counsel.
2. The matter is coming up for admission.
3. The writ petition is filed for a writ of mandamus declaring action ofrespondent No.3 in canceling the “R” Cards of the petitioners as illegal,arbitrary and consequently seeking a direction to respondent No.3 totransfer the “R” Cards of the petitioners in favour of their legalrepresentatives after conducting enquiry in the event of any doubt ontheir “R” Cards and pass such other suitable orders.
4. Several facts had been narrated in the affidavit filed in support ofthe writ petition.
5. It is stated that respondent No.1 commenced the construction ofVishaka Steel Plant during the year 1975 and completed itsconstruction during 1982. It is also stated that on 24.04.1982 in themeeting of the high level committee on Vishakhapatnam Steel Plant, itwas decided that identity cards should be issued to the displacedfamilies effected due to acquisition of the lands for Steel Plant, as soonas the award enquiries are completed, as it was felt that it would takeconsiderable time and that the employment opportunity not to be lost inthe meanwhile. It is also stated that subsequently G.O.Ms.No.520 wasissued by respondent No.2 for the purpose of directing that the names ofthe displaced persons would not be removed from the live registers untilthey are permanently absorbed in the Steel Plant. It is stated thatrespondent No.1 issued G.O.Rt.No.697 to constitute a committee todetermine the number of genuine “R” Cardholders. It is also stated thatthe petitioners through the sangam submitted a representation statingthat about 2000 persons “R” Cards were allegedly kept in doubt,refusing to transfer in favour of legal representatives and requested toresolve this issue and do justice.
6. The order made in W.P.No.2801 of 2009 is placed before thisCourt. The said writ petition was disposed of as hereunder:“The fact that possessing “R” Cards is the pre-requisite forclaiming employment in respondent No.5 is not disputed by thelearned counsel for the petitioners. The fact also remains thatthe “R” Cards stood cancelled more than 20 years back. Inthis admitted fact situation, it is not possible for this Court togrant any relief to the petitioners in this writ petition. However,for the purpose of future employment, the petitioners arepermitted to make representations to respondent No.6 andestablish the genuineness of the “R” Cards said to have beenpossessed by them. On such representations being made,respondent No.6 shall decide on the genuineness or otherwiseof the “R” Cards produced by the petitioners. If respondentNo.6 declares that all or any of the Cards produced by thepetitioners are genuine, the petitioners concerned with suchcards or their legal heirs are entitled to claim the benefit offuture employment subject to the Scheme being in force withrespondent No.5.Subject to the above observations, the writ petition is disposedof.”Court. The said writ petition was disposed of as hereunder:“The fact that possessing “R” Cards is the pre-requisite forclaiming employment in respondent No.5 is not disputed by thelearned counsel for the petitioners. The fact also remains thatthe “R” Cards stood cancelled more than 20 years back. Inthis admitted fact situation, it is not possible for this Court togrant any relief to the petitioners in this writ petition. However,for the purpose of future employment, the petitioners arepermitted to make representations to respondent No.6 andestablish the genuineness of the “R” Cards said to have beenpossessed by them. On such representations being made,respondent No.6 shall decide on the genuineness or otherwiseof the “R” Cards produced by the petitioners. If respondentNo.6 declares that all or any of the Cards produced by thepetitioners are genuine, the petitioners concerned with suchcards or their legal heirs are entitled to claim the benefit offuture employment subject to the Scheme being in force withrespondent No.5.Subject to the above observations, the writ petition is disposedof.”
7. In the light of the facts and circumstances, this writ petition is alsodisposed of in the light of the relief, which had been specified supra.
8. Accordingly, the Writ Petition is disposed of. There shall be noorder as to costs.
December 31, 2009MD
___________________
P.S. NARAYANA, J