Partly allowed

Basam Manjunath Reddy v. the State of Ap

Andhra Pradesh HC1 Jul 2024WP/11069/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Bench dismissed a writ petition challenging the non-consideration of an employee's representation. The Court directed Respondents 2-4 to consider the representation dated 12.04.2024 and pass an order within four weeks without touching merits.

What did the court decide?

Petition disposed of directing Respondents 2 to 4 to consider the representation dated 12.04.2024 and pass orders within four weeks.

Basam Manjunath Reddy Vs the State of Ap — Service and Employment | Andhra Pradesh HC (2024)

¶1

0?^

¶2

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH :: AMARAVA (Special Original Jurisdiction)

¶4

TUESDAY, THE SECOND DAY OF JULY ' TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FOUR

¶5

PRESENT

¶6

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE VENKATESWARLU NIMMAGADDA , WRIT PETITION NO: 11069 OF 2024

¶7

Between:

¶8

Basam Manjunath Reddy, S/o. Basam Harikrishna Reddy, Aged about 23 years, D.No.3-1-61,4th cross east, Vidyanagar colony, Peruru Village, Tirupati, Tirupati District.

¶9

...PETITIONER AND

¶10

The State of Andhra Pradesh, Rep. by its PrI. Secretary, Energy Department, AP Secretariat, Velagapudi, Amaravathi, Guntur District.

¶11

The Superintending Engineer, APSPDCL, Tirupati, Chittoor District. 3. The Deputy Engineer, APSPDCL, Tirupati, Chittoor District.

¶12

The Assistant Engineer, APSPDCL, Tirupati, Chittoor District

¶13

The Assistant Accounts Officer, APSPDCL, Chandragiri mandal. Tirupati, Chittoor District.

¶14

...RESPONDENTS Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed therewith, the High Court may be pleased to issue an appropriate Writ, Order or Direction more particularly one in the nature of WRIT OF MANDAMUS challenging the action by respondent no.2 in not considering the petitioner representation dated 12-04-2024 as illegal, arbitrary and violation of Article 14 and 19 of Constitution of India and consequently direct the respondents to consider the petitioner representation dated 12-04-2024 stated supra..-

¶15

51 [7. fX <■ i: I .V r-W-

¶16

lA NO: 1 OF 2024

¶17

Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the^{circumstances}

¶18

statedM'n, the affidavit filed in support of the writ petition, the High Court may 'be pleased to direct the respondents to consider the representation dated 12-04-2024 pending disposal of the Writ Petition.

¶19

Counsel for the Petitioner: SRI LINGALA HAZARATHAIAH

¶20

Counsel for the Respondent N0.I: GP FOR ENERGY

¶21

Counsel for the Respondent Nos.2 to 4: SRI V.R. REDDY KOWURI, SC

¶22

FOR APSPDCL

¶23

The Court made the following: ORDER

if] r

I &■ r

APHC010216862024

IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI [3329]

¶28

(Special Original Jurisdiction)

¶29

TUESDAY,THE SECOND DAY OF JULY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FOUR

¶30

PRESENT

¶31

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE VENKATESWARLU NIMMAGADDA

¶32

WRIT PETITION NO: 11069/2024

¶33

Between:

¶34

Basam Manjunath Reddy

¶35

...PETITIONER

¶36

AND

¶37

The State Of Ap and Others

¶38

...RESPONDENT(S)

¶39

Counsel for the Petitioner:

¶40

LINGALA HAZARATHAIAH

¶41

Counsel for the Respondent(S):

¶42

1.GPFOR ENERGY (AP)

¶43

2.V R REDDY KOWURI(SC FOR APSPDCL)

¶44

The Court made the following:

¶45

ORDER:

¶46

This Writ Petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India

¶47

seeking the following relief:

¶48

"to issue an appropriate writ, order or direction, more particularly one in the rmture of Writ of Mandamus, challenging the action of the respondent No.2 in not considering the petitioner representation dated 12.04.2024 as illegal, arbitrary

¶49

and violation of Article 14 and 19 of Constitution of India and consequently direct the respondents to consider the petitioner representation and to pass such other order or orders... "

¶50

Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Standing counsel for the respondents.

¶51

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner submitted a representation, dated 12.04.2024 to the 2"^^ respondent to consider the representation so far the respondents have neither considered the representation nor replied to the petitioner. Hence, the Writ Petition.

¶52

Learned Standing Counsel for the respondents submitted that the representation of the petitioner dated 12.04.2024 has been received by the respondents and will be considered in due course and a speaking order will be passed in accordance with law.

¶53

Having regard to the submissions made by learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Standing Counsel for the respondents, and in view of the facts and circumstances of the case, without touching merits of the case, this Court is of the considered view that the present Writ Petition can be disposed of, by directing the respondent Nos. 2 to 4 to consider the petitioner’s representation dated 12.04.2024 and to pass an appropriate orders within a period of four (04) weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of the said representation.

¶54

IuI I

¶55

'p I

¶56

With the above said direction, the Writ Petition is disposed of.

¶57

There shall be no order as to costs.

¶58

Consequently, Miscellaneous Petitions if any, pending in the writ

¶59

petition shall stand closed.

¶60

//TRUE COPY//

¶61

Sd/- K.KASI RAO ACHARI ASSISTANT REGISTRAR

¶62

¶63

SECTION OFFICER

¶64

The PrI. Secretary Energy Department, State of Andhra^Pradesh,AP Secretariat, Velagapudi, Amaravathi, Guntur District.

¶65

The Superintending Engineer, APSPDCL, Tirupati,^{ChittoorDistrict.}

¶66

The Deputy Engineer, APSPDCL, Tirupati, Chittoor^District.

¶67

The Assistant Engineer, APSPDCL, Tirupati, Chittoor^District

¶68

The Assistaht Accounts Officer, APSPDCL, Chandragiri mandal,

¶69

Tirupati, Chittoor District.

¶70

One CC to Sri Lingala Hazarathaiah, Advocate [OPUC]

¶71

One CC to Sri V.R. Reddy Kovvuri, SC for APSPDCL[OPUC]

¶72

Two CCs to GP for Energy, High Court of Andhra Pradesh.^[OUT]

¶73

Three CD Copies.

ssb

HIGH COURT

DATED:02/07/2024

ORDER

WP.No.11069 of 2024

o
o C3H
.g 3 0 JUL 202'» Com

¶81

DISPOSING OF THE W.P. WITHOUT COSTS

Basam Manjunath Reddy v. the State of Ap

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Basam Manjunath Reddy v. the State of Ap

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

Chitturi Vara prasad Vs Chalapathi. Babuji

Dhulipalla Rama Devi Vs Union of India

Gonuguntla Surya Narayana Vs the Union of India

M/S Sri Vinayaka Sai Constructions Vs Sri Shashi Bhushan Kumar,Ias

Teluguntla Sukanya Vs the Union of India

Anjuman Ahle Hadees Youth Welfare Association Vs the Govt of Ap., Minority Welfare Dept., and 3 Others