Writ petition challenging a memo regarding treatment of suspension period was dismissed for non-prosecution as the petitioner repeatedly failed to appear or instruct counsel.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH :: AMARAVATI
TUESDAY, THE TWENTY SECOND DAY OF OCTOBER TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FOUR
PRESENT
THE HON’BLE SMT. JUSTICE SUMATHI JAGADAM
WP(AT) NO: 85 OF 2023
Between:
K.Jagadeswara Rao, S/o. K. Venkateswarlu, aged about 49 years, working as Head Constable at Sub Jail Rajahmundry, on deputation at Central Prison, Rajahmundry.
...PETITIONER
AND
...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 set aside the impugned memo No. 17792/PRI/A1/2013,
dated. 12-2-2014 issued by the 1®‘ respondent by holding the same as illegal, arbitrary, unreasonable and violation of principles of natural justice and. consequently direct the respondents to treat the suspension period from 15-5-2001 to 25-5-2006 as on duty with all consequentialbenefits.
Counsel for the Petitioner :SRI R. SATYANARAYANA MURTHY
Counsel for the Respondents: GP FOR HOME
The Court made the following: ORDER
APHC010433852017
■A
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI
(Special Original Jurisdiction)
[3459]
TUESDAY, THE TWENTY SECOND DAY OF OCTOBER TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FOUR
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE SMT JUSTICE SUMATHI JAGADAM
WRIT PETITION TRANSFERED FROM APAT NO: 85/2023
Between:
K.jagadeswara Rao
...PETITIONER
AND
The Government Of Andhra Pradesh and Others
...RESPONDENT(S)
Counsel for the Petitioner:
Counsel for the Respondent(S):
1.GP FOR HOME (SER.)
The Court made the following:
3
W.P.(AT).No.85 of 2023
ORDER:
As there was no representation for the petitioner on05.08.2024,and 19.09.2024, the matter was directed to be listed on 14.10.2024. On 14.10.2024 also there was no representation for thepetitioner,hence,the matter was directed to be listed today under the caption‘fordismissal’.Even today, there is no representation for the petitioner. It appears that the petitioner is not interested to prosecute the case. Therefore, this Writ Petition (AT) is dismissed for non-prosecution.
There shall be no order as to costs.
As a sequel, miscellaneous petitions, if any, pendingshallstandclosed.
i: //TRUE COPY//
.r
■k-'%
To J 9
'v.
Sd/- U.SRI DEVI assistant REGIS^TRAR SECTION OFFICER
Cnr
1
HIGH COURT
DATED:22/10/2024
ORDER
WP(AT).No.85 of 2023
DISMISSING THE WP(AT) FOR NON-PROSECUTION WITHOUT COSTS
1 provisions across 1 enactments
K.Jagadeswara Rao
The Government of Andhra Pradesh
The Director General & Inspector General of Prisons and Correctional Services, Hyderabad
The Additional Inspector General of Prisons, Telangana Region Hyderabad
The Deputy Inspector General of Prisons, Telangana Region Hyderabad
The Superintendent of Police, District Jail Nalgonda
Sumathi Jagadam
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
