Chetttineedi Veeravenkata Satyanarayan v. the State of Andhra Pradesh

Andhra Pradesh HC3 Jul 2024WP/1491/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Petitioner sought writ declaring obstruction of his duties as Field Assistant illegal. Court noted interim order allowed continuation of service. Counsel for parties submitted no further adjudication needed. Writ petition closed without order as to costs.

What did the court decide?

No order as to costs; Writ petition closed; Pending miscellaneous petitions closed.

Chetttineedi Veeravenkata Satyanarayan Vs the… — Service and Employment | Andhra Pradesh HC (2024)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH :: AMARAVATI

¶2

(Special Original Jurisdiction)

¶3

THURSDAY, THE FOURTH DAY OF JULY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FOUR

¶4

PRESENT

¶5

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE SUBBA REDDY SATTI

¶6

WRIT PETITION NO: 1491 OF 2023

¶7

Between:

¶8

Chetttineedi Veeravenkata Satyanarayan, S/o. Satyanarayana, Aged 40 years, Occ Service, R/o. Ayodyalanka Village, Anchanta Mandal, West Godavari District

¶9

...PETITIONER

¶10

AND

¶11

The State of Andhra Pradesh, Rep. by its Principal Secretary to Panchayat Raj and Rural Development Department, Secretariat Velagapudi, Amaravati, Guntur District.

¶12

The Project Director, District Water Management Agency Collectorate, Eluru, West Godavari District

¶13

The Mandal Parishad Development Officer, Mandal Praja Parishad Achanta Mandal Achanta West Godavari District.

¶14

...RESPONDENTS

¶15

Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed therewith, the High Court may

¶16

'4)

¶17

be pleased to issue a writ, order or direction more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus declaring the action of the Respondents in obstructing me from attending duties as Field Assistant, Ayodyalanka Grampanchayat, Anchanta Mandal, West Godavari District without issuing any notice and without following due process of law as illegal, arbitrary, unjust, improper, and in violation of Article 14,16^{and21oftheConstitution} of India and consequently direct the respondents to permit the me to attend and discharge my duties as Ayodyalanka Grampanchayat, Anchanta Mandal, West Godavari District

¶18

lA NO: 1 OF 2023

¶19

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 direct the Respondents to permit the Petitioner^toattendand discharge the duties as Field Assistant, Ayodyalanka Grampanchayat, Anchanta Mandal, West Godavari District, pending disposal^oftheabove writ petition

¶20

Counsel for the Petitioner: SRI. MEDAPATI SANTOSH REDDY

¶21

Counsel for the Respondent No.1: GP FOR SERVICES -^IV

¶22

Counsel for the Respondent No.2: SRI M S R CHANDRA MURTHY

¶23

Counsel for the Respondent No.3: SRI G SRINIVASULA REDDY, SC FOR MPDO

¶24

The Court made the following: ORDER

¶25

'i hil ” •!

¶26

1 ‘

¶27

IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH ; AMARAVATI THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE SUBBA REDDY SATTI WRIT PETITION No.1491 OF 2023

¶28

Between:

¶29

Chettineedi Veeravenkata Satyanarayana, S/o Satyanarayana, Aged ; 40 years, Occ; Service, R/o Ayodyalanka Village, Anchanta Mandal, West Godavari District.

¶30

... Petitioner

¶31

And

¶32

The State of Andhra Pradesh, rep by its Principal Secretary, Panchayat Raj & Rural Development Department Secretariat, Velagapudi, Amaravati, Guntur District and two others.

¶33

.. Respondents

¶34

: Sri M.Santosh Reddy Counsel for the petitioner ; GP for Services - IV, Counsel for respondents Sri M.S.R.Chandra Murthy, Standing Counsel and Sri G.Srinivasula Reddy, Standing Counsel

¶35

ORDER

¶36

The above writ petition is filed to declare the action of respondent authorities in obstructing the petitioner^{fromdischarging} duties as Field Assistant, in Ayodyalanka Gramapanchayat, Anchanta Mandal, West Godavari District, without issuing^anynotice, as illegal and arbitrary.

Ml' |i H t

Page 2 of 3

SRS, J W.P.No.1491 of 2023

¶41

When the matter is taken up for hearing, learned counsel for the petitioner as well as Sri M.S.R.Chandra Murthy, learned Standing Counsel appearing for respondent No.2 and Sri G.Srinivasula Murthy, learned Standing Counsel appearing for respondent No.3 would submit that pursuant to interim order dated 24.01.2023, the petitioner is allowed to continue as Field Assistant. Learned Standing Counsel also would submit that there are no remarks on behalf of the petitioner.

¶42

Learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that since the petitioner has been allowed to continue as Field Assistant and the petitioner was joined duty on 22.02.2023, nothing survives in the writ petition for further adjudication. Learned standing counsel endorses the same.

¶43

Given the submissions made by learned counsel appearing^on either side, the Writ Petition is closed. There shall be no order as to costs.

¶44

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

¶45

Sd/- B PRASADA RAO ASSISTANT REGISTRAR

¶46

//TRUE COPY// SECTION OFFICER To, 1. One CC to Sri Medapati Santosh Reddy Advocate [OPUC] 2. Two CCs to GP for Services IV, High Court of Andhra Pradesh [OUTl 3. One CC to SRI M S R CHANDRA MURTHY, Standing Counsel 4. One CC to SRI G SRINIVASULA REDDY, Standing Counsel 5. Three CD Copies ERK

ERK

HIGH COURT

DATED:04/07/2024

ORDER

WP.No.1491 of 2023

,,g 3 I JAN 2025 1
^ . Current Section

¶53

CLOSING THE WP WITHOUT COSTS

Chetttineedi Veeravenkata Satyanarayan v. the State of Andhra Pradesh

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Chetttineedi Veeravenkata Satyanarayan 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

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Musunuri Satyanarayana Vs the State of Ap

Kandukoori Venkata Padmavathi Vs The State of Andhra Pradesh

M Padmaja Vs the State of Andhra Pradesh

N Ranganadh Vs the State of Ap

Y P Eramma Vs the State of Andhra Pradesh

B S C Mahaboob Basha Vs The State of Andhra Pradesh