Disposed

Tappeta Prasad v. State of Andhra Pradesh

Andhra Pradesh HC27 Feb 2020WP/3123/2020

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court directed the petitioner to submit representations with details regarding his employment claim under the Project Disposed Persons quota within three weeks. The respondents were instructed to dispose of the representation by a speaking order within four weeks on merits. The writ petition was disposed of.

What did the court decide?

Directed to submit representations within three weeks; authorities to dispose of representation within four weeks by speaking order.

Tappeta Prasad Vs State of Andhra… — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Andhra Pradesh HC (2020)

¶1

THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE D.V.S.S.SOMAYAJULU

¶2

WRIT PETITION No.3123 of 2020

¶3

ORDER :

¶4

This writ petition is filed, under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, seeking to declare the action of the respondents in not considering the petitioner’s case for employment under Project Displaced Persons quota in the light of G.O.Ms.No.98, Irrigation (Proj. Wing) Department, dated 15.04.1986, as illegal.

¶5

Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Government Pleaders appearing for respondents.

¶6

Now the learned counsel for the petitioner argues that the petitioner should be permitted to make a representation with the details of land acquired, his relationship with the land owner etc., and prays that the said representation should be considered and disposed of in terms of G.O.Ms.No.98, dated 15.04.1986.

¶7

Learned Government Pleader does not raise any objection to the submission made by the learned counsel for the petitioner.

¶8

Hence, in line with the orders passed in W.P.No.3095 of 2020, this Court also orders that the petitioner should make a representation setting out his entire case with necessary documents within a period of three (3) weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. The

¶9

¶10

respondents are directed to dispose of the said representation by a speaking order within a period of four (4) weeks thereafter. It is needless to say that the representation should be disposed of strictly on its own merits, as per the applicable Rules and Regulations and in accordance with law, without being influenced by the fact that the order has been passed by this Court.

¶11

With the above direction, the Writ Petition is disposed of. There shall be no order as to costs.

¶12

Miscellaneous petitions, if any, pending shall stand closed in consequence.

¶13

_________________________________ JUSTICE D.V.S.S.SOMAYAJULU

27.02.2020 GR

THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE D.V.S.S.SOMAYAJULU

¶18

WRIT PETITION No. 3123 of 2020

¶19

Date: 27.02.2020

¶20

¶21

Tappeta Prasad v. State of Andhra Pradesh

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Tappeta Prasad 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

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

B. Pavan Kishore, Vs The State of Andhra Pradesh

Talari Surendra Vs the State of Andhra Pradesh

B.Kalimullah, Kadapa Vs Prl Secy, I and C Area Devp (Ser.Vi) Dept, Hyd and Another

Kuraganti Raja Sekhar, Vs The commissioner

K Penchala Vs the State of Ap

Dr. G.Srinivasulu, Vs The State of Andhra Pradesh