Allowed

K Ramesh v. B Anand Ratnakar

Andhra Pradesh HC21 Oct 2024WA/839/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This writ appeal was filed against the order dismissing a writ petition. The High Court held that disposing of the petition without recording consent or hearing parties was legally unsustainable. The appeal was allowed, and the lower order was set aside.

What did the court decide?

The writ appeal is allowed, the impugned order dated 31.07.2024 is set aside, and the writ petition is remanded to the learned Single Judge.

K Ramesh Vs B Anand Ratnakar — Service and Employment | Andhra Pradesh HC (2024)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH :: AMARAVATI^^^^^^ TUESDAY, THE TWENTY SECOND DAY OF OCTOBER ((!' oAv Jb TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FOUR

¶2

PRESENT

¶3

HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE DHIRAJ SINGH THAKUR, CHIEF JUSTICE

¶4

AND

¶5

HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE RAVI CHEEMALAPATI

¶6

WRIT APPEAL NO: 839 OF 2024

¶7

Writ Appeal under clause 15 of the Letters Patent against^theorder in WP No. 15188/2024 dt. 31.07.2024 on the file of the High Court. Between:

¶8

K. Ramesh, S/o.K.Thata Rao, Aged 50 yrs, Occ-Divisional President, AISCTREA, Vijayawada Division, South Central Railway, Vijayawada

¶9

G.Paparao, S/o G.Narasimha Rao, Aged 54 Occ- Divisional Secretary and also Zonal Secretary, All India SCs and CTs Railway Employees Association, South Central Railway, Vijayawada

¶10

...APPELLANTS

¶11

AND

¶12

B. Anand Ratnakar, S/o Aseervadam, Aged 46 years,^Occ- Sr.Technician, O/o Senior Section Engineer/Electrical, Electrical Loco Shed, SC Railway, Vijayawada

¶13

Y.Geeta, D/o Iswaryam, Aged 55 years, Occ-Sr.Technician, O/o Senior Section Engineer/Electrical Loco Shed, SC Railway, Vijayawada

¶14

V.Srini Naik, S/o Somla Naik, Aged 49 years. Occ- Sr.Technician, O/o Senior Section Engineer/Electrical Loco Shed SC Railway, Vijayawada

¶15

Union of India, Rep. by its General Manager, SC Railway, Rail Nilayam, 3rd Floor, Secunderabad - 500 025

¶16

The Principal Chief Personnel Officer, South Central Railway, Rail Nilayam. 4 Floor, Secunderabad - 500 025

¶17

The Senior Divisional Personnel Officer, Vijayawada Division, South Central Railway Vijayawada, Vijayawada

if.

...RESPONDENTS

tf .

lA NO: 2 OF 2024

Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the^{circumstances} stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased to stay the orders dt. 31.07.2024 in WP No.^15188/2024.

¶23

Counsel for the Appellants: SRI M. SRIKANTH representing

¶24

M/s. UTTARA LEGAL

¶25

Counsel for the Respondent Nos.1 to 3: SRI V.V.N. NARAYANA^RAO

¶26

representing SRI NEHEMIAH PERIKE

¶27

Counsel for the Respondent Nos.4 to 6: SRI C.V.R. RUDRA

¶28

PRASAD(CENTRAL GOVT. COUNSEL)

¶29

The Court made the following: JUDGMENT

¶30

¶31

¶32

APHC010444572024 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH Bench Sr.No:-27 [3483] AT AMARAVATI

¶33

WRIT APPEAL NO: 839 of 2024

¶34

K Ramesh and another Vs. B Anand Ratnakar and others

¶35

...Appellants

¶36

...Respondents

¶37

K******* Advocate for Appellants : Mr. M. Srikanth representing Uttara Legal Advocate for Respondent Nos.1 to 3 Mr. VV N Narayana Rao representing Mr. Nehemiah Perike

¶38

Advocate for Respondent Nos.4 to 6 ; Mr. C V R Rudra^Prasad (Central Government Counsel)

¶39

CORAM :THE CHIEF JUSTICE DHIRAJ SINGH THAKUR SRI JUSTICE RAVI CHEEMALAPATI

¶40

DATE : 22"'* October, 2024

¶41

PC :

¶42

The present writ appeal has been preferred against the judgment and order, dated 31.07.2024 in WP.No. 15188 of 2024.

¶43

The main ground urged today before us by learned counsel^for the appellants is that no opportunity of being heard was granted to the appellants neither-was any opportunity granted to file^{objectionstothewrit} petition.

¶44

¶45

¶46

HCJ & RC,J WA 839 2024

¶47

It is stated that the matter was initially listed on 19.07.2024 and was posted on 24.07.2024 enabling learned counsel for respondents 1 to 3 to take instructions. The matter was again listed on 24.07.2024,^{29.07.2024andthen} on 31.07.2024 and decided.

¶48

It is stated that the issues which were urged by learned^{counselforthe} appellants herein (respondent Nos.4 & 5) before the learned single Judge have partially been reflected in the judgment and order impugned and have not been dealt with by the learned single Judge. It^{isalsostatedthathadan} opportunity of filing objections been granted to the appellants herein, issues with regard to maintainability of the writ petition^{wouldhavebeenraisedwhich} too was not granted.

¶49

It is stated that in the absence of any consent by^{thecounselforthe} appellants herein for disposal of the writ petition at the admission stage, the writ petition ought not to have been disposed of finally.

¶50

We find merit in the submission made by learned counsel^forthe appellants that disposal of the writ petition without inviting counters and without recording the consent of the counsel for the parties for disposal at the admission stage would not be sustainable in law especially^{inviewofthefact} that the issues with regard to maintainability of the writ petition against a non statutory body have been highlighted by learned counsel for the appellants.

¶51

¶52

HCJ & RC,J WA 839_2024

¶53

In our opinion, the matter requires to be remanded^tothelearned single Judge to be heard afresh on merits.

¶54

Accordingly, the Writ Appeal is allowed. The judgment^andorder impugned dated 31.07.2024 in WP.No.15188 of 2024 is^setaside. The said writ petition is remanded to the learned single Judge^{forconsiderationafresh.} No order as to costs.

¶55

Registry is directed to list WP.No.15188 of 2024 before the learned single Judge having roster, on 28.10.2024.

¶56

Miscellaneous applications pending, if any, shall stand^closed. SDI- P. VENKATA RAMANA JOINT REGISTRAR

//TRUE COPY//

SECTION OFFICER

To,

The Registrar(Judicial), High Court of A.P. at Amaravati.

¶61

The General Manager, SC Railway, Union of India,^{RailNilayam,3rd} Floor, Secunderabad - 500 025

¶62

The Principal Chief Personnel Officer, South Central^Railway,Rail Nilayam, 4 Floor, Secunderabad - 500 025

¶63

The Senior Divisional Personnel Officer, Vijayawada^{Division,South} Central Railway Vijayawada, Vijayawada

¶64

One CC to M/s.Uttara Legal Advocate [OPUC]

¶65

One CC to Sri Nehemiah Perike Advocate [OPUC]

¶66

One CC to Sri C.V.R Rudra Prasad Advocate [OPUC]

¶67

The Section Officer, Writ (Non-Service), High Court^ofA.P.at Amaravati[OPUC]

¶68

The Section Officer, Posting Section, High Court^ofA.P.at Amaravati[OUT]

¶69

Three CD Copies.

¶70

ssb

¶71

HIGH COURT

¶72

Post W.P.No.15188 of 2024 on 28/10/2024

DATED:22/10/2024

JUDGMENT

WA.No.839 of 2024

ALLOWING THE W.A. WITHOUT COSTS

K Ramesh v. B Anand Ratnakar

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

K Ramesh v. B Anand Ratnakar

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

B S Mallikarjunudu, Chittoor Dist Vs v. Radhika Venugopal, Chittoor Dist & 2 Ot

Dandamudi Anaani Private Ltd. Vs Union of India

M/S Vms Nirman Pvt. Ltd, Vs Union of India

Dy. Superintendent of police, Vs A.P. State Weavers cooperative society Ltd.

Sri Gundibilli Satya Durga Bhavani Mukaratna Prasanna Kumar Vs the Union of India

B Venkateswaramma Vs the Reserve Bank of India