Disposed

Nannapuneni Venkateswarlu v. the State of Andhra Pradesh

Andhra Pradesh HC20 Nov 2023WP/25444/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Petitioner challenged the 4th respondent's action of insisting vacancy without a hearing on reply submitted. High Court quashed subsequent notice as invalid due to lack of personal hearing and directed appropriate orders within four weeks.

What did the court decide?

The 4th respondent to pass appropriate orders considering the explanation submitted by the petitioner and afford an opportunity of personal hearing within four weeks.

Nannapuneni Venkateswarlu Vs the… — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Andhra Pradesh HC (2023)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH :: AMARAVATI THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE NINALA JAYASURYA WRIT PETITION No.25444 of 2023

¶2

Between:-

¶3

Nannapuneni Venkageswarlu …. Petitioner

¶4

And

¶5

State of Andhra Pradesh, Rep. by its Principal Secretary to Government, Panchayat Raj Department and 3 others.

¶6

…. Respondents

¶7

Counsel for the Petitioner : Mr. Pavan Kumar Pasupuleti Counsel for the Respondents : G.P. for Panchayat Raj G.P. for Revenue Mr.G. Venkata Reddy Standing Counsel

¶8

ORDER:

¶9

Challenging the action of the 4^th respondent in insisting the

¶10

petitioner to vacate the grazing cattle shed and house, without passing any suitable order on his reply dated 14.09.2023, in spite of the order dated 13.06.2023, passed in W.P.No.18478 of 2022 and without following due process of law, the present Writ Petition is filed by the petitioner.

¶11

Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned standing counsel for the Gram Panchayat.

¶12

¶13

Admittedly, to the Notice dated 09.09.2023, the petitioner submitted explanation on 14.09.2023. However, the learned counsel for the petitioner submits that without considering the same and passing appropriate orders thereon by giving an opportunity of hearing, the 4^th respondent is trying to dispossess the petitioner in a highhanded manner. Such an action on the part of the 4^th respondent, learned counsel submits, is not sustainable in law.

¶14

On considering the submissions made by the learned counsel for the petitioner this Court see justification in the grievance of the petitioner. Though the learned standing counsel placed a copy of the proceedings dated 07.10.2023 styled as Notice, pursuant to the reply of the petitioner dated 14.09.2023, no personal hearing appears to have been afforded in terms of the earlier direction in W.P.No.18478 of 2022. Therefore, the notice dated 07.10.2023 cannot be treated as valid. In the aforesaid issue of the matter, this Court deems it appropriate to dispose of the With Petition, instead of keeping it pending, with a direction to the 4^th respondent to pass appropriate orders in accordance with law, by duly taking into consideration of the explanation submitted by the petitioner, as also by affording an opportunity of

¶15

¶16

personal hearing, as expeditiously as possible, within a period of four (04) weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. Till passing of orders, as indicated above, interim orders dated 27.09.2023, granted by this Court shall remain in force.

¶17

With the above observation the Writ Petition is disposed of. No order as to costs.

¶18

Consequently, all pending Miscellaneous Applications, if any, shall stand closed.

¶19

_______________________________ JUSTICE NINALA JAYASURYA

¶20

Date: 20.11.2023 Ssv

¶21

¶22

THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE NINALA JAYASURYA

¶23

WRIT PETITION No.25444 of 2023

¶24

Date: 20.11.2023

¶25

Ssv

Nannapuneni Venkateswarlu v. the State of Andhra Pradesh

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Nannapuneni Venkateswarlu v. the 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

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Canara Bank (Erstwhile Syndicate bank), Vs The State of Andhra Pradesh

State Bank of India Vs The State of Andhra Pradesh

State Bank of India Vs The State of Andhra Pradesh

Kotu Prabhakara Rao Vs the State of Andhra Pradesh

Yelamanchili Sandhya Vs the State of Andhra Pradesh

Shaik Shakir Basha, Vs Prl.Secy., Social Welfare dept., State of A.P.