Dismissed

Sri Veera Venkata Satyanarayana Swami Vari Devasthanam, v. Dwivedula Anudeep

Telangana HC22 Nov 2016WA/1241/2016

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In a writ appeal challenging an interim suspension of a removal order, the court held it cannot be entertained despite the rule against challenging ex parte interim orders because the appointee's father had also challenged removal from the same post, making the appointment redundant pending the father's case.

What did the court decide?

The writ appeal was dismissed, confirming the interim suspension of the cancellation of appointment, conditional on the respondent convincing his father to withdraw his petition.

Sri Veera Venkata Satyanarayana Swami Vari… — Writ and Judicial Review | Telangana HC (2016)

¶1

THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE V. RAMASUBRAMANIAN

¶2

AND

¶3

THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE G. SHYAM PRASAD

¶4

WRIT APPEAL No. 1241 of 2016

¶5

JUDGMENT: (Per VRS,J)

¶6

Challenging an order of cancellation of appointment as Vratha Purohit Grade-II in a Temple, the 1^st respondent in this writ appeal filed a writ petition. While ordering notice in the writ petition, a learned Judge of this Court granted an interim suspension of the order of cancellation of appointment. Challenging the said order, the Devasthanam represented by its Executive Officer is before us.

¶7

Heard Smt. K. Lalitha, learned counsel for the appellant.

¶8

Mr. P.S. Raja Sekhar, learned counsel, takes notice for the 1^st respondent/writ petitioner.

¶9

At the outset, we cannot entertain a writ appeal against an ex parte interim order. The interim order passed by the learned Judge appears to have been granted at the time of admission. Therefore, the normal rule is that the Devasthanam should go before the learned Judge seeking vacation of the interim order.

¶10

VRS,J & GSP,J WA No.1241 of 2016

¶11

¶12

However, in this case, one fact brought to our notice is that admittedly, the 1^st respondent was appointed in the place of his father. His father has, subsequently, challenged his removal from the post and he has also obtained an interim suspension of the order of his removal. Two persons cannot work in the same post. Therefore, the Writ Appeal is disposed of, confirming the order of the learned Judge, subject to the condition that the 1^st respondent-son is able to convince his father to withdraw his writ petition against his removal.

¶13

Consequently, miscellaneous petitions if any pending in the writ appeal shall stand closed. No order as to costs.

¶14

__________________________ V. RAMASUBRAMANIAN, J _____________________ G. SHYAM PRASAD, J 22^nd November, 2016 cbs

¶15

VRS,J & GSP,J WA No.1241 of 2016

¶16

¶17

THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE V. RAMASUBRAMANIAN √ AND

¶18

THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE G. SHYAM PRASAD

¶19

Writ Appeal No. 1241 of 2016 (Per VRS,J)

¶20

22^nd November, 2016

¶21

cbs

Sri Veera Venkata Satyanarayana Swami Vari Devasthanam, v. Dwivedula Anudeep

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sri Veera Venkata Satyanarayana Swami Vari Devasthanam, v. Dwivedula Anudeep

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

Mellam balakrishna Vs The union of India

H.K.Veera Sekhara Rao S/o Hk Raghavendra Rao Vs Bank of Baroda, Regional Office A.P.

M / s. Bala Murali Traders Vs State Bank of Hyderabad

M/s Sivaram Yarns Private Limited Vs Union of India, rep. by its Secretary, Ministry of Finance

N.Lakshmi Narasimha Reddy, Vs Vijaya Bank

M/s. Hitech Paper Mart Vs The Authorized Officer