Disposed

Gudivada Srinu v. The Union of India

Andhra Pradesh HC15 Sept 2022WP/29635/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court disposed of the writ petition regarding a Show Cause Notice as adjudicating the merits would be unnecessary. Following counsel agreement and precedent, the direction issued is for respondents to consider the petitioner's explanation and pass orders expeditiously.

What did the court decide?

Directed respondents to consider the petitioner's explanation dated 31.08.2022 and pass appropriate orders expeditiously.

Gudivada Srinu Vs The Union of India — Service and Employment | Andhra Pradesh HC (2022)

¶1

THE HON’BLE DR. JUSTICE K. MANMADHA RAO WRIT PETITION No.29635 OF 2022

¶2

ORDER :

¶3

This Writ Petition is filed under Article 226 of the

¶4

Constitution of India, seeking the following relief:

¶5

“…..to issue a Writ, Order or direction more particularly one in the nature of Writ of mandamus to declare the impugned Show Cause Notice No. 56^th Bat/ITBP/ Establish-2/NOTICE/2022-1312, dated 31.08.2022 issued by the 5^th respondent herein and whereunder the averments made by the 5^th respondent as per Rule 26 of ITBPF Rules, 1994 as being illegal, arbitrary and in violation of under Article 14, 16 and 21 of the Constitution of India, consequently set aside the impugned proceedings in Show Cause Notice No. 56^th Bat/ITBP/ Establish-2/NOTICE/2022-1312, dated 31.08.2022 and pass such other orders....”

¶6

Though the petitioner made several allegations against the

¶7

respondents, during the course of hearing learned counsel for the petitioners requested this Court to issue a direction to the respondents to consider the explanation dated 31.08.2022 (Ex.P6) submitted by the petitioner, without touching the merits of the case.

¶8

Mr. Jupudi V.K.Yagnadath, learned counsel representing Mr. N. Harinath, learned Deputy Solicitor General for the respondents readily agreed to consider the explanation dated 31.08.2022

¶9

¶10

(Ex.P6) submitted by the petitioner, if any pending with the respondent authorities.

¶11

In view of the submission of learned counsel appearing for respondents, I need not decide the truth or otherwise of the allegations made in the petition.

¶12

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 be passed for a quick or easy disposal of cases in overburdened adjudicatory institutions but, they do not serve to the cause of justice. As the learned counsel for the petitioner himself requested to issue a direction to consider the explanation dated 31.08.2022 (Ex.P6) submitted by the petitioner, I find no other alternative except to issue such direction.

¶13

In the result, Writ Petition is disposed of, with the consent of both the counsel at the state of admission, while directing the respondents to consider the explanation dated 31.08.2022 (Ex.P6) submitted by the petitioner and pass appropriate orders strictly in accordance with law, as expeditiously as possible. No costs.

¶14

1 2019 (8) SCALE 544

¶15

¶16

As a sequel, miscellaneous applications pending, if any, shall also stand closed.

¶17

___________________________ DR.K. MANMADHA RAO, J

¶18

Date: 15.09.2022 KK

¶19

¶20

THE HON’BLE DR. JUSTICE K. MANMADHA RAO

¶21

WRIT PETITION No.29635 OF 2022

¶22

Date: 15.09.2022

¶23

Gudivada Srinu v. The Union of India

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Gudivada Srinu v. The Union of India

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

Dr K Sreelatha Vs the Director of Medical Education State of Ap

Veeragandham Rajendra Prasad Vs the State of Andhra Pradesh

Dr. Kolli Prasanthi, Vs The State of Andhra Pradesh

Ch.Nooka Rathnam Vs the State of Andhra Pradesh

Katikila Moshe Vs The State Of Andhra Pradesh

Mamilla Venkata Sudhakar Reddy Vs the Transport Commissioner