Syed. Karimullah, Vs The State of Andhra… — Writ and Judicial Review | Andhra Pradesh HC (2026)

Syed. Karimullah, Vs The State of Andhra… — Writ and Judicial Review | Andhra Pradesh HC (2026)

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Permission accorded to the petitioner to withdraw the writ petition; no substantive relief granted; no order as to costs; pending miscellaneous petitions, if any, stood closed.

Issue for consideration

Whether the charge memo dated 04.09.2025 of the 2nd respondent initiating disciplinary proceedings and the consequential memo dated 19.5.2026 communicating the enquiry report dated 29.4.2026 are illegal, arbitrary and violative of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India (pleaded by the petitioner; not adjudicated, as the petition was withdrawn).

Ratio / Principle

At hearing, learned counsel for the petitioner sought permission to withdraw the writ petition; permission was accorded and the writ petition was dismissed as withdrawn. No question on the merits of the challenged charge memo or consequential memo was decided.

Key takeaways

As a sequel to the dismissal as withdrawn, no order as to costs was made and miscellaneous petitions, pending if any, were directed to stand closed.ratio¶35

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Andhra Pradesh High Court at Amaravati (Nyapathy Vijay, J.), Writ Petition No. 18815/2026, order dated 13.07.2026: Syed Karimullah, Administrative Officer in the office of the Regional Transport Officer, Proddutur, filed a petition under Article 226 seeking a writ of mandamus to declare illegal and quash Charge Memo No. 11001746A/1/2025 dated 04.09.2025 of the 2nd respondent (Transport Commissioner, Andhra Pradesh) initiating disciplinary proceedings founded on a Lokayukta complaint (Complaint No. 1639/2025/B1 dated 23.5.2025) concerning the Citizen APR online service episode, together with the consequential Memo No. 2002/1A/1/2026 dated 19.5.2026 communicating the enquiry report dated 29.4.2026, alleging violation of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India. At the time of hearing, learned counsel for the petitioner sought permission to withdraw the writ petition; permission was accorded and the writ petition was dismissed as withdrawn, with no order as to costs and pending miscellaneous petitions, if any, standing closed. No point on the merits was considered or decided by the Court. The order is marked speaking/reasoned and non-reportable.

Date of reserved for orders : --Date of pronouncement : 13.07.2026 Date of uploading :

APHC010349572026

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

[3460]

MONDAY, THE 13^th DAY OF JULY 2026

PRESENT

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE NYAPATHY VIJAY

WRIT PETITION NO: 18815/2026

Between:

SYED. KARIMULLAH,, S/O. SYED. HAMEED, AGED 52 YEARS, OCC ADMINISTRATIVE OFFICER, O/O. THE REGIONAL TRANSPORT OFFICER, PRODDUTUR, YSR KADAPA DISTRICT.

...PETITIONER

AND

THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH, REP. BY ITS SPECIAL CHIEF SECRETARY PRINCIPAL SECRETARY TRANSPORT DEPARTMENT, SECRETARIAT, AMARAVATHI, GUNTUR DISTRICT. 522 238

THE TRANSPORT COMMISSIONER, ANDHRA PRADESH, VIJAYAWADA, KRISHNA DISTRICT. 520 001

...RESPONDENT(S):

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 tomay be pleased to issue writ or order more particularly one in writ of MANDAMUS declaring the impugned Charge Memo. NO. 11001746A/1/2025 dated 04.09.2025 of the 2nd respondent in initiating the disciplinary proceedings on the unconnected issue based on the

2

complaint made before the Honble Lokayukta vide Complaint No. 1639/2025/B1 dated 23.5.2025 and consequential direction to submit report vide letter dated 19.7.2025 for the incident happened on introduction of Citizen APR providing direct access to the public to apply and confirm the services through online, which led to mis use of the alleged Vehicle Owner in obtaining NOC and directing the to submit representations on the enquiry report dated 29.4.2026 communicated through Memo.No.2002/1A/1/2026 dated 19.5.2026 by the 2nd respondent as illegal, arbitrary and violative of Article 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India, as illegal, arbitrary and violative of Article 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India and consequently quash and set aside the impugned Memo dated 04.09.2025 of the 2nd respondent and to pass such

IA NO: 1 OF 2026

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 may be pleased to stay all further proceedings consequent to the impugned Charge Memo. N011001746A/1/2025-1 dated 4.9.2025 and consequential Memo. No. 20022/1 A/1/2026 dated 19.5.2026 of the 2nd respondent, pending disposal of the main writ petition and to pass such

Counsel for the Petitioner:

1.VADAPALLI RAMESH

Counsel for the Respondent(S):

1.GP FOR SERVICES II

The Court made the following:

3

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE NYAPATHY VIJAY

WRIT PETITION No.18815 of 2026

ORDER:

At the time of hearing, learned counsel for the Petitioner seeks

permission of the Court to withdraw the Writ Petition.

Permission is accorded.

Accordingly, the Writ Petition is dismissed as withdrawn.

No order as to costs.

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

________________________ JUSTICE NYAPATHY VIJAY

Date: 13.07.2026 chs Whether the order is:

Speaking	`✔`	Reasoned
Reportable		Non-reportable	`✔`

4

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE NYAPATHY VIJAY

64

WRIT PETITION No.18815 of 2026

Dated: 13.07.2026

chs