Dismissed

Mallela Chandra Sekhar, v. State of Andhra Pradesh

Andhra Pradesh HC28 Dec 2020WP/23377/2020

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court disposed of a writ petition challenging the removal of a Home Guard petitioner from service without deciding the merits. Instead, following counsel's concession and citing the apex court precedent in Government of India v. P.Venkatesh, the Court directed the respondents to dispose of the petitioner's pending representation dated 13.03.2018 within one month.

What did the court decide?

To direct the respondents to dispose of the petitioner's representation dated 13.03.2018 within one month.

Mallela Chandra Sekhar, Vs State of Andhra… — Service and Employment | Andhra Pradesh HC (2020)

¶1

THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE M.SATYANARAYANA MURTHY WRIT PETITION NO.23377 OF 2020

¶2

ORDER :

¶3

This writ petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution

¶4

of India seeking the following relief:

¶5

“to issue an appropriate Writ, Order or Direction more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus declaring the proceedings in D.O.No.31/2009 - B7/HG/48/2009 dated 27.07.2009 passed by The Superintendent of Police, Chittoor, removing the petitioner from the service of Home Guards as arbitrary illegal and voilative of principles of natural justice and set aside the same to the extent of petitioner herein and consequently, direct the respondents to reenlist the petitioner as Home Guard forthwith and grant him all consequential benefits that will accrue on that basis as if he is not removed at any time including the honorarium etc for which he is entitled on that basis within a specified time”

¶6

Though the petitioner made several allegations against the respondents, during hearing, Sri K.Srinivasa Prasad, learned counsel for the petitioner requested this Court, without touching the merits of the case, to issue a direction to the respondents to dispose of the representation of the petitioner dated 13.03.2018.

¶7

Learned Government Pleader for Services-I readily agreed to dispose of the representation of the petitioner dated 13.03.2018, if any pending with the authorities.

¶8

In view of the submission of the learned Government Pleader for Services, I need not decide the truth or otherwise of the allegations made in the petition. This Court is conscious that no such direction be issued, in view of the judgment of the Apex Court in “ The Government of India v. P.Venkatesh¹ ”, wherein the Apex Court held that such orders may make for a quick or easy disposal of cases in overburdened adjudicatory institutions. But, they do no service to the cause of justice. As the learned counsel for the petitioner himself requested to issue a direction to dispose of the

¶9

1 2019 (8) SCALE 544

¶10

MSM,J WP_23377_2020

¶11

representation dated 13.03.2018, I find no other alternative except to issue such direction.

¶12

In the result, the writ petition is disposed of, directing the respondents to dispose of the representation of the petitioner dated 13.03.2018, in accordance with law, within one month from today. No costs.

¶13

Consequently, miscellaneous petitions pending, if any, shall

¶14

also stand closed.

¶15

_________________________________________ JUSTICE M. SATYANARAYANA MURTHY

¶16

Date:28.12.2020

¶17

Mallela Chandra Sekhar, v. State of Andhra Pradesh

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Mallela Chandra Sekhar, v. State of Andhra Pradesh

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Obili Ravi Kumar Vs State of Andhra Pradesh

Taken Up Vs T Madan Mohan Rao

Kannedhara Srinivasa Rao, Vs The State of Andhra Pradesh

Ainaparthi Satyanandam Vs A.P. Eastern Power Distribution Company Limited

Manjunathan Enterprises Vs the State of Ap

G.KarnalaKumari, Vs The State of Andhra Pradesh