Allowed

Vanga Adi Seshu v. The State of Andhra Pradesh

Andhra Pradesh HC8 Sept 2024WP/6260/2015

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Two writ matters before the Andhra Pradesh High Court: a challenge to a mines vigilance notice and a challenge to APSRTC cancellation and recovery orders. Both petitions were allowed in terms of earlier coordinate-bench orders, setting aside the impugned notice and the impugned recovery orders.

What did the court decide?

Impugned vigilance notice dated 11.02.2015 set aside; APSRTC orders dated 07.05.2007, 17.06.2019 and 31.03.2021 set aside; no costs.

Vanga Adi Seshu Vs The State of Andhra… — Mining and Natural Resources | Andhra Pradesh HC (2024)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH :: AMARAVATI

¶2

(Special Original Jurisdiction)

¶3

MONDAY ,THE NINTH DAY OF SEPTEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FOUR

¶4

PRESENT t

¶5

THE HON’BLE DR JUSTICE K MANMADHA RAO WRIT PETITION NO: 6260 OF 2015

¶6

Between:

¶7

Vanga Adi Seshu, S/o.Mareswara Rao, Hindu, aged about 45 years Occ: Business, R/ o.Palakol, West Godavari District,^{AndhraPradesh.}

¶8

...PETITIONER

¶9

AND

¶10

The State of Andhra Pradesh, Rep.by its Secretary, Mines as Geology Department, A.P. Secretariat, Hyderabad.

¶11

The Director of Mines & Geology, State of Andhra Pradesh BRKR Bhavan, Hyderabad.

¶12

The Assistant Director of Mines & Geology, (Vigilance) Near Athidi Hotel, R.R.Pet, Eluru.

¶13

...RESPONDENTS

¶14

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 a writ of Mandamus or any other appropriate writ, order or direction declaring the notice No.1442/Vg/2014-3 dated.11-022015 issued by the 3'^'^ respondent as illegal, without jurisdiction, contrary to the provisions of the A.P. Minor, Mineral Concession Rules and particularly the law laid down by this Hon'ble Court in the judgment reported in 2013 (4) ALD 490 and to set aside the said notice.

¶15

¶16

¶17

I.A. NO: 1 OF 2015(WPMP. NO: 8329 OF 2015^

¶18

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 grant stay of all further proceedings in pursuance of the notice No.1442/Vg/2014-3 dt.11-02-2015 issued by the 3 respondent pending disposal of the above W.P.

¶19

I.A. NO: 1 OF 2017fWVMP. NO: 3747 OF 20171

¶20

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 vacate the interim orders dated. 18.03.2015 in WP MP No.8329 of 2015 in WP No.6260 of 2015.

¶21

Counsel for the Petitioner: SRI. TURAGA SAI SURYA Counsel for the Respondents: GP FOR INDUSTRIES COMMERCE (AP) Counsel for the Respondents: GP FOR MINES AND GEOLOGY (AP) The Court made the following: ORDER.

¶22

¶23

APHC010672222015

¶24

IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction)

¶25

[3310]

¶26

MONDAY ,THE NINTH DAY OF SEPTEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FOUR

¶27

PRESENT

¶28

THE HONOURABLE DR JUSTICE K MANMADHA RAO

¶29

WRIT PETITION NO: 6260/2015

Between:

Vanga Adi Seshu

...PETITIONER

AND

The State Of Andhra Pradesh and Others ...RESPONDENT(S)

¶35

Counsel for the Petitioner:

¶36

1.TURAGA SAI SURYA

¶37

Counsel for the Respondent(S):

¶38

1.GP FOR MINES AND GEOLOGY (AP)

¶39

2.GP FOR INDUSTRIES COMMERCE (AP)

¶40

The Court made the following Order:

¶41

The Writ Petition is filed under Article 226 of the^{ConstitutionofIndia}

¶42

seeking the following relief;

¶43

“ to Issue a writ of Mandamus or any other appropriate writ order or direction deciaring the notice No.1442A/g/2014-3, dt.11-02-2015 issued by the 3'^ respondent as iilegai, without jurisdiction contrary^tothe provisions of the A.P.Minor Minerai Concession Rules^and particularly the law laid down by this Honbie Court^inthe Judgment reported in 2013 (4) ALD 490 and to set aside^the said notice ”

¶44

¶45

Mr.Chidambaram, learned counsel representing Mr.Turaga Sai Surya, learned counsel for the petitioner and Ms.P.Sudeepthi, learned Assistant Government Pleader for Mines and Geology for the respondent Nos.2 and 3 are present.

¶46

Today, when the matter is taken up for hearing, it is conjointly submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Assistant Government Pleader for Mines and Geology that the issue involved in this writ petition is squarely covered by the order of this Court in Writ Petition Nos. 15173 and 12928 of 2018, dated 19.08.2024.

¶47

In view of the submissions made by both the petitioner’s counsel and learned Assistant Government Pleader, this Writ Petition is allowed, in terms of the above said Order in Writ Petition Nos.15173 and 12928 of 2018, dated 19.08.2024. The impugned Notice No.1442A/g/2014-3, dated 11.02.2015 issued by the 3'^^ respondent is hereby set aside.

¶48

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

¶49

Registry is directed to attach a copy of the Order in Writ Petition Nos.15173 and 12928 of 2018, dated 19.08.2024, to this Order.

¶50

K. TATA RAO //TRUE COPY// DEPUTY REGISTRAR

To,

SECTION OFFICER

The Secretary, The State of Andhra Pradesh, Mines as Geology

¶55

Department A.P. Secretariat, Hyderabad.

¶56

The Director of Mines & Geology, State of Andhra Pradesh BRKR Bhavan, Hyderabad

¶57

The Assistant Director of Mines & Geoiogy, (Vigilance) Near Athidi Hotel, R.R.Pet, Eluru

¶58

One CC to Sri. Turaga Sai Surya, Advocate [OPUC]

¶59

Two CCs to GP for Industries Commerce (AP), High Court^OfAndhra Pradesh. [OUT]

¶60

Two CCs to GP for Mines And Geology (AP), High Court^OfAndhra Pradesh. [OUT]

¶61

Three CD Copies.

¶62

¶63

DR.KMR, J DATEb:09/09/2024

¶64

ORDER

¶65

WP.No.6260 of 2015

¶66

5 2 8 OCT 202'f m
C;
Current Section .

¶67

ALLOWING OF THE WRIT PETITION WITHOUT COSTS

HIGH COURT

[3310]

APHC010149952021

IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction)

¶73

THURSDAY ,THE EIGHTH DAY OF AUGUST TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FOUR

¶74

PRESENT

¶75

THE HONOURABLE DR JUSTICE K MANMADHA RAO

¶76

WRIT PETITION NO: 8411/2021

¶77

Between:

¶78

K.v. Naga Raju ...PETITIONER

¶79

AND

¶80

Andhra Pradesh State Road Transport Corporation and Others

¶81

...RESPONDENT(S)

¶82

Counsel for the Petitioner:

¶83

I.AVVS BHUJANGA RAO

¶84

Counsel for the Respondent(S):

¶85

1.SOLOMON RAJU MANCHALAFOR (APSRTC)

¶86

The Court made the following:

¶87

ORDER:

¶88

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

¶89

seeking the following relief:

¶90

“to issue the writ, order or direction more particularly^onein the nature of Writ of Mandamus or any other appropriate writ by declaring the action of the 2^^^ respondents in issuing^theorders NO.P3/660 (05)/2000-RM WG, Dated 7.5.2007 and also in issuing consequential necessary recover order No.LC1/876-

¶91

¶92

15(5)/2007-RMAA/P Dated 17.06.2019 issued by 2”^ respondent and further consequential recovery order No.E1/876(02)/2020TPG, Dated 31.03.2021 issued by 3''^ respondent in spite of knowing the fact that the subject matter has attained finality in W.P.No.12040 of 2007 and batch is as illegal, arbitrary^and without jurisdiction an consequently declare that the^orderNo P3/660(5)/2000-RM-W.G District, dated 25.02.2002 issued for decasualization and preponement of placement of time scale from 01.04.1997 to 23.3.1996 are perfectly legal and justified and set aside me above said impugned order No.P3/660( 05)72000RM-WG, dated 07.05.2007 and further more the consequential recovery order No. LC17876-15(5)72007RM/WP,dated 17.06.2019 and order No.E17876(02)72020-TPG, 31.03.2021 by direct the respondents to pay all consequential service monetary benefits including arrears. ”

¶93

Brief facts of the case are that the petitioner was appointed as a conductor on compassionate appointment on casual basis instead of appointing on regular basis and the petitioner service was regularized as per Orders No.P3/255(7)/97-RMAA/.G, dated 28.07.1997 along with others. Accordingly, the petitioner’s pay was also fixed in^{thetimescalefromthedate} of regularization. Thereafter, Respondent No.2 has issued order No.P3/660(5)/2000-RM, West Godavari District, dated 25.02.2002, wherein casual service of the petitioner from the date of appointment to date of regularization was decasualized and preponement of placement of time scale from 01.04.1997 to 23.03.1996 along with other employees who are appointed under bread winner scheme. The petitioners pay was fixed in the scale of pay from the date of initial appointment i.e., 23.03.1996 and the petitionerwas also

paid difference of arrears for the period ini question. Surprisingly, after a period of 6 years, the very same authority i.e.., the Regional Manager, APSRTC West Godavari Region, Eluru issued orders dated 07.05.2007 for cancellation of the earlier orders, dated 25.02.2002. The 2"^^ respondent i.e., the Regional Manager, West Godavari Region cannot review his own orders dated 07.05.2007 for cancellation of placement of Time Scale. The petitioner herein approached this Court by way of filing W.P.No.11432 of 2007 along with other employees challenging the proceedings dated 07.05.2007. This Court, on 25.10.2018 dismissed the Writ Petition with a liberty to the petitioner to challenge the recovery orders if issued. Consequently, recovery orders were issued by the S'" respondent on 31.03.2021.Hence, the present Writ Petition is filed.

¶98

Counters affidavits are not filed by the respondents. 4. Heard Mr Ramalingeswara Rao, learned counsel appearing on behalf of Mr A.V.V.S.Bhujanga Rao, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr T.Vinod Kumar, learned counsel appearing on behalf of Mr M.Solomon Raju, learned Standing Counsel appearing for respondents. 5. On hearing, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the matter is squareiy covered by the order passed by this Court in W.P.No.12040 012007 and batch, dated 04.10.2018. and hence, requests this Court to pass similar order in this petition also.

¶99

¶100

Mr T.Vinod Kumar, leaned counsel appearing on behalf of Mr M.Solomon Raju, learned Standing Counsel for the respondentsopposed for grant of any relief in the writ petition and prayed^{todismissthesame.}

¶101

Following the same, this Writ Petition is allowed in^termsofthe order passed in W.P.No.12040 of 2007 and batch, dated 04.10.2018, setting aside the impugned order No.P3/660(05)/2000-RM:WG,^{dated07.05.2007of} the 2"^^ respondent and consequential recovery order No.LC1/876-15(5)/2007RM/WG, dated 17.06.2019 issued by the 2 nd respondent and Order No.E1/876(02)/2020-TPG, dated 31.03.2021 issued by the 3^^^ respondent. There shall be no order as to costs.

¶102

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

¶103

DR. K. MANMADHA RAO, J.

¶104

Date 08.08.2024 TM

¶105

Vanga Adi Seshu v. The State of Andhra Pradesh

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Vanga Adi Seshu 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

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

B Ratnamani Vs The State of Andhra Pradesh

Jada Gnan Dev, Vs The Superintending Engineer

Chinnamsetti Kiran, Vs The State of Andhra Pradesh,15555

M/s. Imperial Granites Private Limited, Vs The Director of Mines and Geology

M/s. The Lam Labour Contact Coop. Society Vs State of Andhra Pradesh, Rep. by its

Kampa Hanoku Vs the State of Andhra Pradesh