Dismissed

B. Thimma Reddy, v. The Depot Manager, Apsrtc

Andhra Pradesh HC5 Aug 2019WP/20912/2011

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court dismissed a writ petition filed by the Secretary of Rythu Cooly Sangham challenging an old Lokadalath order regarding APSRTC bus halting points. The Court held that since the petitioner was not a party to the conciliation proceedings, he lacked locus standi, and the eight-year delay precluded interference.

What did the court decide?

Writ petition dismissed; no order passed in the matter as the petitioner was not a party to the original proceedings.

B. Thimma Reddy, Vs The Depot Manager, Apsrtc — Land Acquisition | Andhra Pradesh HC (2019)

¶1

THE HON’BLE THE ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE C. PRAVEEN KUMAR AND

¶2

THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE M. SATYANARAYANA MURTHY

¶3

WRIT PETITION No.20912 of 2011

¶4

ORDER: {Per the Hon’ble the Acting Chief Justice C. Praveen Kumar}

¶5

The present writ petition came to be filed seeking issuance of writ of Mandamus declaring the order in PLC No.8/2011, dated 5.3.2011 on the file of Lokadalath Bench, Mandal Legal Services Committee, Rayadurg, Anantapur District, as illegal and arbitrary, and consequently, to direct the 1^st respondent to halt APSRTC buses at old bus station of Rayadurg Town to alight and board the passengers in the interest of justice.

¶6

The petitioner being a Secretary of Rythu Cooly Sangham of Anantapur District, filed this writ petition aggrieved by the order impugned herein. It is stated that an extent of Ac.0.06 cents situated in R.S.No.198 of Vellachintalagudem village of Gopalapuram Mandal, West Godavari District was acquired by the Government long back for construction of Health subcenter and ANM quarters, and the official respondents allowed some persons to occupy the above piece of land. A notice dated 24.8.2010 came to be issued by the petitioner to respondents Nos.1 to 3 to protect the land from illegal occupation. Inaction of the official respondents in taking steps to protect the illegal occupation of the subject land led to filing of this writ petition. It is stated that the 3^rd respondent for his personal benefit and to gain support of one sect of people made a complaint before the Mandal Legal Service Authority in PLC No.8 of 2011 against APSRTC seeking a direction to stop their buses at APSRTC bus stand. Since APSRTC failed to contest the case properly, the Mandal Legal Services Committee, Rayadurg directed the Municipal Commissioner and the C.I. of police, Rayadurg to prevent APSRTC

¶7

¶8

HACJ & MSM,J W.P.No.20912/2011

¶9

from halting their buses at the open space/old bus stand, and also directed Depot Manager, APSRTC, Rayadurg to run the buses from APSRTC bus stand only. It is the grievance of the petitioner that without considering the convenience of the general public, the Mandal Legal Services Committee directed the APSRTC to run their buses from RTC bus stand only, which is resulted in causing inconvenience to the general public.

¶10

A perusal of the order impugned would indicate that the Lokadalat Bench, Mandal Legal Services Committee after hearing all the parties and obtaining their consent passed the order impugned, which is as under:

¶11

“1. That the Depot Manager, APSRTC, Rayadurg i.e., 2^nd respondent shall run the APSRTC buses from the New RTC Bus stand which is in existence, from 19.3.2011 onwards and shall not send their buses to the old Bus Stand for halting and alighting.

¶12

That the Inspector of Police, Rayadurg and the Commissioner, Rayadurg Municipality shall monitor and see that no bus shall halt and alight at old Bus stand on or after 9.4.2011 to avoid accidents and to cause inconvenience to the public;

¶13

That the Commissioner, Rayadurg Municipality and Inspector Rayadurg Police Station may locate a place for private buses/autos for halting and alighting by fixing points within a period five months i.e., on or before 18.8.2011, other than the existing old bus stand, because it has become very inconvenience and lot of accidents;

¶14

Any violation of the above directions by anybody, the petitioner is at liberty to approach the concerned forum for redressal as the award is passed with the consent of all the parties;

¶15

The Inspector of Police, Rayadurg and the Commissioner, Municipality, Rayadurg are at liberty to take necessary appropriate action against the violators as per law.”

¶16

The above order was passed in the year 2011 directing the Commissioner, Rayadurg Municipality and Inspector, Rayadurg Police Station to locate the place for private buses/autos for halting and alighting by fixing points within

¶17

¶18

HACJ & MSM,J W.P.No.20912/2011

¶19

a period of five months i.e., on or before 18.8.2011, and to monitor and see that no bus shall halt and alight at old bus stand on or after 9.4.2011 to avoid accidents and to cause inconvenience to the public. Now, eight years have elapsed. The situation on ground is quite different today due to increase of the area and the population in the subject area. Further, it is pertinent to note that the petitioner is not a party in the above PLC and hence, he has no locus standi to challenge the order impugned.

¶20

In the above circumstances, if any order is passed at this length of time, it would create further complications and inconvenience to the system being maintained by the official respondents in the subject area. Therefore, we are not inclined to interfere with the order impugned. If really, the petitioner feels, at this length of time, that any inconvenience is still being caused to the public at large, he is always at liberty to make a representation to the authorities concerned.

¶21

Accordingly, the Writ Petition is dismissed. No costs. Consequently, miscellaneous petitions pending, if any, shall stand closed.

¶22

_____________________ C. PRAVEEN KUMAR, ACJ

¶23

_________________________ M. SATYANARAYANA MURTHY, J

¶24

Dated: 5.08.2019 Nn

¶25

¶26

HACJ & MSM,J W.P.No.20912/2011

¶27

THE HON’BLE THE ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE C. PRAVEEN KUMAR

¶28

AND

¶29

THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE M.SATYANARAYANA MURTHY

¶30

WRIT PETITION No.20912 of 2011

¶31

(Order delivered by the Hon’ble the Acting Chief Justice C. Praveen Kumar}

¶32

¶33

5.8.2019

B. Thimma Reddy, v. The Depot Manager, Apsrtc

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

B. Thimma Reddy, v. The Depot Manager, Apsrtc

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Dr. Chegudi Ashok Babu alias Joshua Daniel, Vs Karunakar Sugguna

S Ajay Nagendra Babu Vs the Project Director

Kolli Manikanta, Vs The State of Andhra Pradesh

M/s Sec Services, Vs State of Andhra Pradesh, Rep. by its Principal Secretary

Muntha Sai Babu Vs Joint Collector

Mercury Marvel Hospitalities Pvt., Ltd., Vs The State of Ap