Disposed

P. Nagabhushana Rao, v. The Secretary

Telangana HC17 Aug 2004WP/14538/2004

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In a writ petition seeking a writ of mandamus to compel the State Transport Authority of Andhra Pradesh to counter-sign a permit order from the Orissa State Transport Authority regarding inter-state bus timings, the High Court at Hyderabad directed the respondent to pass appropriate orders on the petitioner's appeal within four weeks.

What did the court decide?

Direction to the respondent to pass appropriate orders on the petitioner's petition within four weeks and communicate the same.

P. Nagabhushana Rao, Vs The Secretary — Service and Employment | Telangana HC (2004)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD

¶2

(Special Original Jurisdiction)

¶3

TUESDAY THE SEVENTEENTH DAY OF AUGUST TWO THOUSAND AND FOUR

¶4

PRESENT

¶5

THE HON’BLE DR JUSTICE G.YETHIRAJULU

¶6

WRIT PETITION NO : 14538 of 2004

¶7

Between:

¶8

P. Nagabhushana Rao son of LateKamaraju,58years, resident of Rekhana Street, Parlakhimundi, Gajapathi District, Orissa State.

¶9

..... PETITIONER

¶10

AND

¶11

The Secretary, State Transport Authority, Sri BurgulaRamakrishna Rao Officers Buildings, Tank bund road, Hyderabad, A.P.

¶12

.....RESPONDENT

¶13

Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying that in the circumstances stated in the Affidavit filed herein the High Court will be pleased to issue a Writ, or order or direction, particularly one in the nature of writ of Mandamus, declaring the inaction of the respondent in granting counter-signature to the timings granted on 12-05-2003 to the bus Ap 30 T-0988 plying on the inter-state route Parlakhimundi to Berhampur via) palasa and Ichapuram, by the State Transport Authority, Orissa at Cuttack as illegal, improper and failure to exercise its powers vested in it with a direction to the respondent to counter sign the timings granted by the State transport Authority, Orissa at cuttack, on 12-5-2003 in its office order No.XXXIV-58/02-7350, immediately and stop running the buses ORG-7299 and OSX-8133 , on the inter-state routes Berahampur toSunnareddy via) Ichapuram, Berhampur to Novada via) Ichapuram and Berahmpur to Sunandi, respectively, forthwith .

¶14

Counsel for the Respondent: GP FOR TRANSPORT

¶15

The Court at the stage of admission, made the following :

¶16

ORAL ORDER

¶17

The petitioner is the owner of Bus bearing No.AP 30 T-0988 and it is an inter-state service. The Orissa State Transport Authority granted permit to three other buses in clashing with the timings of the petitioner’s bus. Therefore, he made a representation to the Orissa State Transport Authority and the timings are revised through an order dated 12-05-2003. Since, it is an inter-state service, the said order of the Orissa State Transport Authority has to be counter-signed by the respondent herein. The petitioner, therefore, filed a petition dated 08-03-2004 on 18-03-2004 before the respondent for necessary orders. The grievance of the petitioner is that the respondent so far did not pass any orders on the said petition. Therefore, he approached this Court seeking a direction to the respondent to pass appropriate orders on his petition dated 08-03-2004.

¶18

In the light of the circumstances explained by the petitioner, the respondent is directed to pass appropriate orders within four weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this Order on the petition of the petitioner dated 08-03-2004 as per rules and communicate the same to the petitioner.

¶19

The writ petition is accordingly disposed of. No order as to costs.

¶20

17^th AUGUST 2004

¶21

*TSNR

¶22

¶23

1. The Secretary, State Transport Authority, Burgularamakrishna Rao Officers Buildings,Tank bund road, Hyderabad,A.P

¶24

2. Two CCs to G.P for Transport,High Court ofA.P.Hyderabad(OUT)

¶25

3 2 CD copies

P. Nagabhushana Rao, v. The Secretary

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

P. Nagabhushana Rao, v. The Secretary

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

R.Baig, Vs The Managing Director

Y.Ravinder Raju, Vs The Chairman

Raja Vinay Mohan Lal BhatNager Vs Commissioner for Endowments

V. Lakshmana Gupta Vs Regional Medical Officer

S.Eswar Reddy Vs The Chief General Manager

K.Nirmal Babu, Vs The Managing Director