Petitioner applied for writ of mandamus for reinstatement. Court held no direction could be issued as Supreme Court reserved judgment against State. Petition dismissed without costs.
Writ petition dismissed without any order as to costs.
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 JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD
(Special Original Jurisdiction)
WEDNESDAY, THE THIRTEENTH DAY OF OCTOBER TWO THOUSAND AND FOUR
PRESENT
THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE B. SUDERSHAN REDDY
and THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE K.C. BHANU
WRIT PETITION NO : 12450 of 2004
Between:
S. Janardhan Rao, S/o. S. Narayana Rao, R/o. H.No. 2-7-712, Excise Colony, Subedari, Hanamkonda, Warangal - 506 010.
..... PETITIONER
AND
1 Government of Andhra Pradesh, rep by its Secretary, Department of Legislative Affairs & Justice, Secretariate, Hyderabad. 2 Hon'ble High Court of Andhra Pradesh, Rep by Registrar-Vigilance, Hyderabad.
.....RESPONDENTS
Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying that in the circumstances stated in the Affidavit filed herein the High Court may be pleased to issue a Writ, Order or Direction more particularly one in the nature of WRIT OF MANDAMUS directing the Respondent No. 1 to issue orders of reinstatement, forthwith without further delay, as per the recommendation of the Hon'ble High Court. Counsel for the Petitioner: MR.G.RAMA SARMA Counsel for the Respondent No.1: G.P. FOR HOME Counsel for the Respondent No.2: MR.C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY
The Court at the stage of admission made the following :
O R D E R: (Per Hon’ble Sri Justice B.Sudershan Reddy)
Learned Government Pleader for Home, on the basis of instructions, states that the Supreme Court having heard the appeal preferred by the State of Andhra Pradesh against the judgment of this Court, reserved the case for judgment. In such view of the matter no directions as prayed for could be issued at this stage. It is not as if the respondent-High Court is not likely to reinstate the petitioner into the service in case the appeal preferred by the State ends in dismissal.
In such view of the matter, no direction need be issued at this stage. The writ petition shall accordingly stand dismissed without any order as to costs.
B.SUDERSHAN REDDY, J.
Dated : 13.10.2004
K.C.BHANU, J.
GS/MSV
To
1. The Secretary, Government of Andhra Pradesh, Department of Legislative Affairs & Justice, Secretariate, Hyderabad. 2 The Registrar-Vigilance, Hon'ble High Court of Andhra Pradesh, Hyderabad.
3. 2CCs to G.P. for Home, High Court of A.P. Hyderabad (OUT)
4. The Section Officer, Vigilance Section, High Court of A.P. Hyderabad.
5. 2CD copies
1 issue framed by the court
Whether a writ of mandamus directing reinstatement should be issued while the pending Supreme Court appeal reserving judgment remains undecided.
1 provisions across 1 enactments
S. Janardhan Rao
Government of Andhra Pradesh
Hon'ble High Court of Andhra Pradesh
B. Sudershan Reddy
K.C. Bhanu
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
