Partly allowed

The Project Director, v. The Honble Lokayuktha

Telangana HC15 Apr 2015WP/7681/2015

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court issued a pre-admission show-cause notice to the second respondent regarding a writ petition challenging a Lokayukta order. The court preliminarily held the Lokayukta exceeded jurisdiction in a service dispute and suspended the impugned order, adjourning the matter for a fortnight.

What did the court decide?

Impugned order suspended and show cause notice issued to 2nd respondent; matter adjourned for fortnight.

The Project Director, Vs The Honble Lokayuktha — Service and Employment | Telangana HC (2015)

¶1

(SHOW CAUSE NOTICE BEFORE ADMISSION)

¶2

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT HYDERABAD FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AND THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH

¶3

(Special Original Jurisdiction)

¶4

TUESDAY, THE TWENTY FOURTH DAY OF MARCH TWO THOUSAND AND FIFTEEN

¶5

:PRESENT:

¶6

THE HON'BLE SRI KALYAN JYOTI SENGUPTA, THE CHIEF JUSTICE AND

¶7

THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE SANJAY KUMAR

¶8

WP No: 7681 of 2015

¶9

Between:

¶10

The Project Director, District Water Management Agency, Prakasam District, Ongole.

¶11

..... PETITIONER

¶12

AND

¶13

1 The Hon'ble Lokayuktha, Represented by Its Registrar, State of Andhra Pradesh &Telengana, At Hyderabad.

¶14

2 P.Mallikarjuna Rao S/o Narayana Rao, Technical Assistant, MGNREGS, Presently working at Konakanametla (M), Prakasam District, R/o RTC Colony, Veetanararajupally Gram Panchayat, Vinukonda Mandal, Guntur District.

¶15

3 The Social Audit Department, Rep. by its Director, Dwakra Bhavan-2, Lower Tank Bund, Gandhi Nagar, Hyderabad.

¶16

4 Member Secretary, Rural Development, Room No.203, CRD, Hermitage Complex, Hill Fort Road, Saifabad, Hyderabad.

¶17

(R3 and R4 are not necessary parties in this Writ Petition)

¶18

.....RESPONDENTS

¶19

WHEREAS the Petitioner above named through his Advocate SRI M.S.R.CHANDRA MURTHY presented this writ 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 an appropriate writ, order or direction more particularly one in the nature of writ of Mandamus, declaring the impugned order, dated 18-11-2014 in complaint No.1633/2014/B1 is arbitrary, illegal and violative of Article 14 of the Constitution of India, and principles of natural justice;

¶20

AND WHEREAS the High Court upon perusing the petition and affidavit filed herein and upon hearing the arguments of SRI M.S.R.CHANDRA MURTHY, Advocate for the Petitioner and of Sri P.V.V.Vidya Sagar, learned Counsel for Respondent No.1, directed issue of notice to Respondent No.2, herein to show cause as to why this writ petition should not be admitted in the circumstances set out in the petition and the affidavit filed in the Writ Petition;

¶21

You viz ;

¶22

P.Mallikarjuna Rao S/o Narayana Rao, Technical Assistant, MGNREGS, Presently working at Konakanametla (M), Prakasam District, R/o RTC Colony, Veetanararajupally Gram Panchayat, Vinukonda Mandal, Guntur District.

¶23

are directed to show cause, as to why in the circumstances set out in the petition and the affidavit filed therewith (copy enclosed) this writ petition should not be admitted.

¶24

THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING ORDER:

¶25

Let pre-admission notice be issued to the 2^nd respondent.

¶26

Learned counsel for the 1^st respondent takes notice.

¶27

Matter is adjourned for fortnight.

¶28

From a reading of the impugned order we are of the prima facie view that the Hon’ble Lokayukta has exceeded its jurisdiction, as the matter relates to a service dispute between the employer and employee.

¶29

Hence, the impugned order is suspended.

¶30

ASSISTANT REGISTRAR //TRUE COPY//

¶31

for ASSISTANT REGISTRAR

¶32

¶33

1 The Registrar, Hon'ble Lokayuktha, State of Andhra Pradesh &Telengana, At Hyderabad.

¶34

2 P.Mallikarjuna Rao S/o Narayana Rao, Technical Assistant, MGNREGS, Presently working at Konakanametla (M), Prakasam District, R/o RTC Colony, Veetanararajupally Gram Panchayat, Vinukonda Mandal, Guntur District. (1 & 2 BY RPAD along with a copy of petition and affidavit)

¶35

3 One CC to SRI M.S.R.CHANDRA MURTHY, Advocate (OPUC)

¶36

4 One CC to P.V.V.Vidya Sagar, Advocate (OPUC).

¶37

5 Two Spare Copies.

SRL

HIGH COURT

HCJ & SK,J

DATE: 24.03.2015

NOTE: MATTER IS ADJOURNED FOR FORTNIGHT

¶43

NOTICE BEFORE ADMISSION

¶44

WP. NO. 7681 OF 2015

¶45

DIRECTION

¶46

HIGH COURT Drafted by: SRL Date of Drafting : 25-03-2015

¶47

HCJ & SK,J DATE: 24.03.2015

¶48

NOTE: MATTER IS ADJOURNED FOR FORTNIGHT

¶49

NOTICE BEFORE ADMISSION

¶50

WP. NO. 7681 OF 2015

¶51

DIRECTION

The Project Director, v. The Honble Lokayuktha

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

The Project Director, v. The Honble Lokayuktha

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

The Union of India Vs Gmr Hyderabad International Airport Ltd.

St Joseph Convent School, Vs The Proddatur Municipality

M.Papa Rao, Vs The Andhra Pradesh Pollution Control Board

Kundena Raju Vs The State of Telangana, Rep. by its Secretary

G. Venkateswara Rao, Vs The Union of India

E. Mohan Reddy Vs The Union Government of India, rep. by its