Dismissed

D.Prabhakar Rao, v. The Government of Andhra Pradesh rep by its Principal

Telangana HC21 Dec 2012WP/39305/2012

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In a writ under Article 226, the petitioner seeking mandamus directions to compel the appointment authority to consider his representation for the suspension or transfer of the respondent Managing Director due to pending criminal proceedings. The court dismissed the petition as devoid of merits.

What did the court decide?

The Writ Petition was dismissed with miscellaneous petitions closed.

D.Prabhakar Rao, Vs The Government of Andhra… — Municipal and Town Planning | Telangana HC (2012)

¶1

HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE R.SUBHASH REDDY WRIT PETITION No.39305 of 2012

¶2

ORDER:

¶3

Petitioner claims to be the Honorary President of Sircilla Co-Operative Electric Supply Society. In this Writ Petition, he seeks directions by way of Mandamus, to declare the action of the respondents in not disposing of his representation dated 27.09.2012, as illegal and arbitrary.

¶4

Alleging corrupt practices against respondent No.6, who is the Managing Director of the said society, petitioner filed a private complaint before II Additional Special Judge-SPE & ACB, City Civil Court, Hyderabad, which is referred to the Police for investigation and the same is registered as Crime No.13 of 2012//RCO-ACB of 2012 on the file of Deputy Superintendent of Police, Anti Corruption Bureau, Karimnagar Range, Karimnagar. It is stated that respondent No.6 has filed Criminal Petition No.7744 of 2012 before this Court seeking to quashing the said proceedings, wherein interim order, dated 02.11.2012, was passed granting stay of all further proceedings in the said crime.

¶5

Further, it is the case of petitioner that as there is every possibility of tampering the records by respondent No.6, he submitted a representation, dated 27.09.2012, to

¶6

respondents seeking suspension or transfer of respondent No.6, but, in spite of the same, no steps have been taken by respondents.

¶7

Except the allegation that there is every possibility of changing and tampering the records by respondent No.6, there is no other material to accept the same at this stage. Merely on the ground that petitioner has filed a private complaint and the same is registered as Crime No.13 of 2012//RCO-ACB of 2012 on the file of Deputy Superintendent of Police, Anti Corruption Bureau, Karimnagar Range, Karimnagar and is pending investigation, as a matter of right, he being the President of the said society cannot seek directions by way of Mandamus, to consider his representation, dated 27.09.2012, in this Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. If such contingency arises, it is for the appointing authority to consider the matter.

¶8

For the aforesaid reasons, the Writ Petition is devoid of merits and is, accordingly, dismissed.

¶9

Miscellaneous Petitions, if any, filed in this Writ Petition shall stand closed.

¶10

__________________________ JUSTICE R.SUBHASH REDDY

¶11

21^st December 2012 dr

D.Prabhakar Rao, v. The Government of Andhra Pradesh rep by its Principal

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

D.Prabhakar Rao, v. The Government of Andhra Pradesh rep by its Principal

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

Ananthula Purushotham, Vs The Joint Collector (Civil Supplies)

K. Sarmas Vali Vs The District Collector and District Magistrate

M/s. Sri Raghavendra Saw Mill, Vs The Conservator of Forests

M/s. Agarwal Global Steels Limited (Mdk 847) Vs The Central Power Distribution Company of a.P., Ltd.

M/s. Jeevaka Industries Ltd.(MDK-906), Vs The Central Power Distribution Company of

M/s Jairaj Ispat Limited, Vs The Central Power Distribution Company of A.P. Limited