This single bench dismissed a writ petition filed by a petitioner who was part of a prior batch of similar petitioners. The Court rejected the claim that he did not instruct his counsel, noting significant delay after the initial dismissal.
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.
THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE P.LAKSHMANA REDDY
THE HON’BLE SMT.JUSTICE T.MEENA KUMARI
AND
WRIT PETITION No.18471 OF 2005
Dt: 09.09.2005
Between:
B.Pydiraju S/o.late Ramarao R/o.6-42, Post Office Street Simhachalam, Visakhapatnam-28 … PETITIONER
AND
Union of India Rep.by its General Manager South Eastern Railway Calcutta, West Bengal and others … RESPONDENTS
THE HON’BLE SMT.JUSTICE T.MEENA KUMARI
AND
THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE P.LAKSHMANA REDDY
WRIT PETITION No.18471 OF 2005
ORDER: (per the Hon’ble Smt.Justice T.Meena Kumari)
This Writ Petition is filed by the petitioner-applicant aggrieved by the Order dated 02.05.2001 in O.A.No.1750 of 2000 passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal, Hyderabad Bench.
Earlier, the petitioner along with 38 others had filed Writ Petition No.10166 of 2001
before this Court seeking the same relief. This Court, basing on the submission of the learned counsel for the petitioners that out of 39 petitioners, 9 petitioners are not interested in pursuing the case viz., petitioners 3, 9, 13, 15, 27, 28, 36, 38 and 39 and that others are interested in pursuing the matter, dismissed the said Writ Petition as far as petitioners 3, 9, 13, 15, 27, 28, 36, 38 and 39 are concerned and allowed the Writ petition as far as the other petitioners are concerned.
The present Writ Petition has been filed by the 9th petitioner therein stating that he has not given such type of instructions to his counsel.
We are not in agreement with the contention put forth by the learned counsel for the petitioner in view of the fact that six months have been elapsed from the date of dismissal of the Writ Petition insofar as the petitioner is concerned. Therefore, the petitioner is not entitled for any relief.
The Writ Petition is accordingly dismissed.
(T.MEENA KUMARI, J)
(P.LAKSHMANA REDDY, J)
Dt: 09.09.2005
bsv/lvl
B.Pydiraju S/o.late Ramarao
Union of India
P.Lakshmana Reddy
T.Meena Kumari
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
