In a writ petition challenging a Central Administrative Tribunal order, this court dismissed the petition as misconceived, holding that the petitioner failed to exhaust the alternative remedy of filing an appeal within the seven-year delay.
No 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 THIRD DAY OF NOVEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND FOUR
PRESENT
THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE BILAL NAZKI
And
THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE S.ANANDA REDDY
WRIT PETITION NO : 19967 of 2004
Between:
P. Duryodhana S/o Ramalinga , Ex.EDDA/MC, Sekharapuram, B.O., Chapara S.O Srikakulam District
..... PETITIONER
AND
....RESPONDENTS
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 an appropriate Writ, order or Direction, more particulalry one in the nature of Writ of Certiorari or any other appropriate Writ, order or Direction, calling for all the records in and connected with the orders of the 2nd respondent in his proc., Memo. No. PF/EDMC/DA-SKP, dt 28-09-1991 Central Administrative Tribunal OA 538/94 and 19-03-1997 and quash the same.
Counsel for the Petitioner: MR.S.TULASI DAS
Counsel for the Respondent Nos.1 & 2: MR.A. RAJASHEKAR REDDY (SC FOR CG)
The Court, at the stage of admission, made the following:
Oral order:- (Per: The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Bilal Nazki)
On 19-03-1997, the Tribunal passed an order. Thereafter, an application came to be filed before the Tribunal i.e., M.A.No. 801 of 2000 in O.A.No. 538 of 1994, which was decided on 22-09-2000. While disposing of the O.A on 19-03-1997, the Tribunal recorded that the applicant had been removed from service and he had the alternative remedy of filing of an appeal. As the petitioner has not exhausted the remedy available to him under law, the Tribunal refused to decide the controversy. After having waited for more than seven long years, the petitioner has now challenged the said order. It is too late in the day to come and approach this court by showing a grievance against an order passed in March, 1997. The petitioner has not filed even an appeal in terms of the order dated 19-03-1997 of the Tribunal. This writ petition is misconceived and is, accordingly, dismissed. No costs.
BILAL NAZKI, J
S. ANANDA REDDY, J
Dt. 03-11-2004
Pvks/*
To
1. The Senior Superintendent of Post Offices, Srikakulam Division at Srikakulam. 2. The Assistant Superintendent of Post Offices, Tekkali Sub-Division at Tekkali, Srikakulam District .
3.2CD copies
Form-NIC-OGS/WP{TRT}
1 issue framed by the court
Whether the petitioner could approach this court directly when he had not exhausted the alternative remedy available before the Tribunal.
P. Duryodhana S/o Ramalinga
The Senior Superintendent of Post Offices, Srikakulam Division at Srikakulam
The Assistant Superintendent of Post Offices, Tekkali Sub-Division at Tekkali
BILAL NAZKI
ANANDA REDDY
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
