Telangana High Court
WP/19061/2004 of Sri Kondapeta Venkata Subba Reddy, Vs The A.P.S.R.T.C. rep by its Chairman, on 30 December 2004
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) THURSDAY, THE THIRTIETH DAY OF DECEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND FOUR PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE B.PRAKASH RAO WRIT PETITION NO : 19061 of 2004 Between: Sri Kondapeta Venkata Subba Reddy, R/o. Kondapet Post, Chennur
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD
(Special Original Jurisdiction)
THURSDAY, THE THIRTIETH DAY OF DECEMBERTWO THOUSAND AND FOUR
PRESENT
THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE B.PRAKASH RAO
WRIT PETITION NO : 19061 of 2004
Between:
Sri Kondapeta Venkata Subba Reddy, R/o. Kondapet Post, Chennur Mandal, Cuddapah District.
..... PETITIONER
AND
1 The A.P.S.R.T.C. rep by its Chairman, and Managing Director, Musheerabad,Hyderabad.
2 The A.P.S.R.T.C. rep by its Regional Manager, Cuddapah Region, Cuddapah,Cuddapah District.
.....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 a Writ, Order or Direction more particularly one in the nature of Writ ofMandamus, declaring the action of the 2nd respondent appointing the petitioner asconductor Gr.II afresh by its Proceedings No. PA/20A (85) 99-RM 'C' dated 25-9-1999 is illegal and against that order the appeal/representation filed by the petitionerbefore the 1st respondent is not disposed of is wholly illegal arbitrary, unjust andcontrary to law and also violative of Article 14, 16 & 21 of the Constitution of Indiaand consequently direct the 1st respondent to dispose of the appeal/representationfiled by the petitioner as early as possible.
Counsel for the Petitioner:MS.B.MALLESWARI
Counsel for the Respondent No.: MR.P.VINAYAKA SWAMY
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.
This Writ Petition is filed for issuance of Writ particularly one in the nature ofWrit of Mandamus declaring the action of the second respondent appointing thepetitioner as Conductor Gr. II afresh by its proceedings No. PA/20A (85) 99-RM ‘C’dated 25/9/1999.
The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submitted that he filed anappeal/representation dated 28.3.2003 before the first respondent but the same isstill pending consideration.
As the appeal/representation dated 28.3.2003 filed by the petitioner asagainst the impugned orders is still pending consideration before the firstrespondent, it is not necessary to go into the merits of the case and it would suffice inthe interests of justice to direct the appeal/representation dated 28.3.2003 to bedisposed of.
Accordingly, the Writ Petition is disposed of directing the first respondent todispose of the representation/appeal dated 28.3.2003 filed by the petitioner within a period of eight weeks form the date of receipt of a copy of this order and passappropriate orders in accordance with law.
______________
30.12.2004
ka
To
1. The A.P.S.R.T.C. rep by its Chairman, and Managing Director,Musheerabad, Hyderabad.Musheerabad, Hyderabad.
2. The A.P.S.R.T.C. rep by its Regional Manager, Cuddapah Region,Cuddapah, Cuddapah District.Cuddapah, Cuddapah District.
3. 2 CD copies.