K.Gunasekhar, Chittoor Dist. Vs Prl… — Writ and Judicial Review | Andhra Pradesh HC (2025)

K.Gunasekhar, Chittoor Dist. Vs Prl… — Writ and Judicial Review | Andhra Pradesh HC (2025)

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Dismissed

Issue for consideration

Whether the termination of the petitioner, an outsourcing typist in the 4th respondent's (Tahsildar's) office, without notice vide Proceedings ROC A3/4089/2015 (Dt. 14.8.2015 and Dt. 15.12.2015) was illegal, arbitrary and violative of Articles 14 and 21 of the Constitution and of principles of natural justice (issue raised in the writ petition; not adjudicated on merits, the petition having been dismissed for non-prosecution). +1 more

Ratio / Principle

None appeared for the petitioner on 17.04.2025, whereupon the case was directed to be listed under the caption 'for dismissal'.

Key takeaways

Despite the case being listed under the 'for dismissal' caption, none appeared for the petitioner on the date of the order (25.04.2025) to represent the lis.ratio¶¶56-57
The writ petition is dismissed for non-prosecution, with no order as to costs.ratio¶¶60-61
All interlocutory applications, if any, stand closed in terms of the order.ratio

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

High Court of Andhra Pradesh at Amaravati (Special Original Jurisdiction), single Judge (Sri Justice Maheswara Rao Kuncheam), 25 April 2025 — K. Gunasekhar v. State of Andhra Pradesh and others, Writ Petition No. 11508 of 2016. The writ petition under Article 226 sought a mandamus to set aside the termination of the petitioner, an outsourcing typist in the office of the Tahsildar, S.R. Puram Mandal, vide Proceedings ROC A3/4089/2015 dated 14.8.2015 and 15.12.2015, alleging arbitrariness and violation of Articles 14 and 21 of the Constitution and of natural justice. An interim order had been granted on 07-04-2016 in WP MP No. 14495 of 2016. None appeared for the petitioner on 17.04.2025, when the case was directed to be listed under the caption 'for dismissal', and again none appeared on 25.04.2025. The writ petition was accordingly dismissed for non-prosecution, with no order as to costs, and all interlocutory applications stood closed. The merits of the termination were not adjudicated.

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

FIRDAY, THE TWENTY FIFTH DAY OF APRIL TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE

PRESENT

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE MAHESWARA RAO KUNCHEAM

WRIT PETITION NO: 11508 OF 2016

Between:

K.Gunasekhar, S/o. Munuswamy, Hindu, Occ; outsourcing typist O/o Tahsildar, S.R. Puram Mandal, Chittoor District, R/o. 49, Kothapalli Mite Village and Post, S.R. Puram Mandal, Chittoor District

...Petitioner

AND

The State of Andhra Pradesh, Rep by its Principal Secretary, Revenue Department, Secretariat Bldgs, Saifabad, Hyderabad.

The District Collector, Chittoor, Chittoor District.

The Revenue Divisional Officer, Chittoor, Chittoor District

The Tahsildar, S.R. Puram Mandal, Srirangarajapuram, Chittoor District

Unique Service Consultants, Rep. its. Proprietor, D. No. 8-211 New Balaji Colony, M.R. Palli Road, Tirupathi-517502, Chittoor District

...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 a writ order qr direction more particularly one in the nature of writ of Mandamus to debiare the action of the respondents 2 to 4 in terminating the petitioner from his service as out sourcing typist in the 4th respondent's office without dhy notice vide Proceedings ROC A3 /4089/2015 Dt. 14.8.2015 and Dt. 15.12.2015 / as illegal arbitrary and violative of Article 14, and 21 of the Constitution of India besides being violative of principles of natural justice and consequently^setaside the same as illegal in the interest of justice

I.A. NO: 2 OF 2016fWPMP. NO: 14495 OF 201 fi)

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 continue the petitioner as out sourcing typist in the 4th respondent's office by suspending the proceedings of the 2nd respondent passed in ROC A3 /4089/2015 Dt. 14.8.2015 and Dt. 15.12.2015 pending disposal of WP In the interest of justice

I.A. NO: 1 OF 2016(WVMP. NO: 243fi OF dnifi)

Between:

The State of Andhra Pradesh, Rep by its Princioal Department, Secretariat Bldgs; Saifabad, Hydera^bad. ^ Revenue

The District Collector, Chittoor, Chittoor District.

The Revenue Divisional Officer, Chittoor, Chittoor District

The Tahsildar, S.R. Puram Mandal, Srirangarajapuram Chittoor District ...Petitioners/Respondents No.1 to 4

AND

^' TahSr® S r' Pur. outsourcing typist O/o Village and Posrs^R^’p^urat^a'^n'li^rihiitoSfbrsS^

...Respondent/Petitioner

...Respondents/Respondent No.5

(R2 is not a necessary party to this petition)

Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed i in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased to vacate the interim ordef granted( on 07-04-2016 in WP MP No. 14495 of 2016 in WP No. 11508 of 2016.

Counsel for the Petitioner: SRI T C KRISHNAN (Not Present)

Counsel for the Respondents No.f to 4: GP FOR REVENUE (AP)

The Court made the following: Order

APHC010077762016

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

[3504]

FRIDAY, THE TWENTY FIFTH DAY OF APRIL TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE

PRESENT

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE MAHESWARA RAO

KUNCHEAM

/

]

WRIT PETITION NO: 11508/2016

Between:

K.gunasekhar, Chittoor Dist.

...PETITIONER

AND

PrI Secretary Revenue Dept Hyd 4 Others ...RESPONDENT(S) and Others

Counsel for the Petitioner:

1.T C KRISHNAN

Counsel for the Respondent{S):

1.GP FOR REVENUE (AP)

The Court made the following Order:

On 17.04.2025, none appeared for the petitioner. As such,

the instant case is directed to be listed today under^the caption

for dismissal”. Despite the same, today also none appeared^for

the petitioner to represent the lis.

2

%

In that view of the matter, this Writ Petition is dismissed for

non-prosecution. No order as to costs.

Interlocutory Applications, if any, stand closed in terms of

this order.

To,

Sd/- SHAIK MOHD. RAFI ASSISTANT REGISTRAR //TRUE COPY// SECTION OFFICER

1- One CC to SRI T C KRISHNAN Advocate tOPUC] FOR revenue (AP), High Court Of Andhra Pradesh 3. Three CD Copies

gsg

\

HIGH COURT

DATED: 25/04/2025

ORDER

WP.No.11508 of 2016

(P
s 2 9 SEP 2025 o<br>^ . Current Section .

DISMISSING THE WP FOR NON PROSECUTION WITHOUT COSTS