Dismissed

K.Venkat Rao, Visakhapatnam District v. the Ap Transco., Vidyut Soudha., Hyderabad & 2 Others

Andhra Pradesh HC14 Nov 2024WP/2940/2007

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court at Amaravati dismissed a writ petition filed by an ex-casual labour seeking appointment to a post by default due to the petitioner's failure to file representation despite notice.

What did the court decide?

The writ petition is dismissed for default; no order as to costs; pending miscellaneous applications are closed.

K.Venkat Rao, Visakhapatnam District Vs the Ap… — Service and Employment | Andhra Pradesh HC (2024)

¶1

IN THE

¶2

high court of ANDHRA PRADESH :: AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction)

¶3

FRIDAY ,THE FIFTEENTH DAY OF NOVEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FOUR

¶4

PRESENT

¶5

HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE MAHESWARA RAO KUNCHEAM

¶6

WRIT PETITION NO: 2940 OF 2007

¶7

Between:

¶8

K.Venkat Rao, S/o.Ramulu Ex-casual labour APSEB r/o.4-5 sundaranagar, Near Old Dairy, Visakhapatnam

¶9

...PETITIONER

¶10

AND

¶11

^ traNSCO., rep. by its Chairman, & Managing Director, (CMD), Vidyut soudha, Somajiguda, Hyderabad

¶12

Eastern Power Distribution company of AP Limited,, rep.by its^chairman & Managing Director, Visakhapatnam

¶13

Eastern Power Distribution company of AP Limited,, rep.by its Superintending Engineer, Operation, Visakhapatnam

¶14

...RESPONDENTS

¶15

Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed therewith,^{theHighCourtmay} be pleased to issue a writ of mandamus or any other^{appropriatewritorder} Lr.No.SE/0/VSP/AD/A5/D.No. 1621 dated or direction declaring the

¶16

►

¶17

21.7.2006 issued by the 3rd respondent as being illegal, arbitrary, and violative of Art. 14 of the constitution of India and consequently direct the respondents to forthwith consider the petitioners case for appointment to the post of Junior Lineman on contract with reference to Memo No.OSD(P)DMI/A3/1138/35-1 dated 26.8.1985 and BP(P&G Per) Ms.No.36 dated 18.5.1997.

¶18

I.A. NO: 1 OF 2007fWPMP. NO: 3767 OF 20071

¶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 forthwith consider the petitioner case for appointment to the post of junior Lineman on conctract basis with reference to Memo No.OSD(P)DMI/A3/1138/35-1 dated 26.8.1985 and BP(P&G Per.)Ms.No.36 dated 18.5.1997 pending disposal^{oftheabovewrit} petition.

¶20

Counsel for the Petitioner: SRI. G V RAMANA REDDY

¶21

Counsel for the Respondents: K UDAYA SRI

¶22

Counsel for the Respondents: SAMINENI KISHORE

¶23

The Court made the following: ORDER

¶24

APHC010030242007

¶25

IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH

¶26

AT AMARAVATI

¶27

[3504]

¶28

(Special Original Jurisdiction)

¶29

FRIDAY ,THE FIFTEENTH DAY OF NOVEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FOUR

¶30

PRESENT

¶31

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE MAHESWARA RAO KUNCHEAM

¶32

WRIT PETITION NO: 2940/2007

¶33

Between:

¶34

K.venkat Rao, Visakhapatnam District

¶35

...PETITIONER

¶36

AND

¶37

The Ap Transco Vidyut Soudha Hyderabad 2

¶38

...RESPONDENT(S)

¶39

Others and Others

¶40

Counsel for the Petitioner:

¶41

1.GVRAMANA REDDY

¶42

Counsel for the Respondent(S):

¶43

VV SATISH (SC for APEPDCL)

¶44

2.KUDAYASRI

¶45

3.SAMINENI KISHORE

¶46

The Court made the following:

¶47

HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE MAHESWARA RAO KUNCHEAM

¶48

WRIT PETITION No.2940 OF 2007

¶49

ORDER:

¶50

On 08.11.2024 this Court pleased to pass the following^order: “No representation for the petitioner(s). Post the matter on 15.11.2024 under the caption ‘for dismissal’.

¶51

Consequent to the direction of this Court, today^thematter is listed under the caption of dismissal. Despite the^{same,unfortunately} today also there is no representation for the petitioner. In view of the facts and circumstances,'this Court is constrained^{todismissthelisfor} default.

¶52

Accordingly, the writ petition is dismissed for default.

¶53

There shall be no order as to costs.

¶54

Pending miscellaneous applications, if any, shall stand^closed.

¶55

Sd/- P.U.V.BHASKARRAO ASSISTANT REGfSTRAR

//TRUE COPY//

SECTION OFFICER

One CC to SRI. G V RAMANA REDDY Advocate [OPUC]

¶60

One CC to SRI. K UDAYA SRI Advocate [OPUC]

¶61

One CC to SRI. SAMINENI KISHORE Advocate [OPUC]

¶62

Three CD Copies

GSSK

HIGH COURT

DATED: 15/11/2024

ORDER

WP.No.2940 of 2007

WRIT PETITION IS DISMISSED FOR DEFAULT

K.Venkat Rao, Visakhapatnam District v. the Ap Transco., Vidyut Soudha., Hyderabad & 2 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

K.Venkat Rao, Visakhapatnam District v. the Ap Transco., Vidyut Soudha., Hyderabad & 2 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

A.P. Forest Maistries Union, (Regd No. G.711/85) Vs The Government of Andhra Pradesh, rep by Principal

Dr. S. Panduranga Vithal, Chittoor Dist. Vs Sri Venkateswara University, Tirupati & Another

Hooghli Mills Projects Limited, 10 Clive Row,Kolkata Vs The Presiding Officer, Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour

K. Punnaiah, Guntur Dist. Vs the Apsrtc, Divisional Manager, Apsrtc, Guntur Dist.& Anothe

C. Raghu Ramaiah, Vs the Depot Manager, Apsrtc & Another

Kcp Sugar & Industries Corporation Ltd., Krishna District Vs the Presiding Officer, Labour Court,Guntur & Another