Partly allowed

Ivrcl Infrastructure and Projects Limited, v. State of Andhra Pradesh rep. by its Principal Secretary

Telangana HC25 Jan 2016WP/883/2016

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The court allowed the writ petition partly. Following a prior judgment, it set aside the impugned order as violating natural justice and remitted the matter to the 5th respondent to issue a notice for the petitioner to reply to conclusions in a vigilance report before deciding.

What did the court decide?

Impugned order set aside; matter remitted to 5th respondent to give notice for reply; proceedings re-initiated in accordance with law.

Ivrcl Infrastructure and Projects… — Constitutional and Fundamental Rights | Telangana HC (2016)

¶1

HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE VILAS V.AFZULPURKAR

¶2

W.P.No.883 of 2016

¶3

ORDER:

¶4

Heard.

¶5

Both the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Advocate General submits that the issue raised in this writ petition is squarely covered by the judgment of this Court in W.P.No.39915 of 2015, dated 10.12.2015.

¶6

In view of the same, following the aforesaid judgment, this Writ Petition is also partly allowed by observing as follows:-

¶7

“Learned Advocate General appearing for the respondents fairly states that since one of the contentions raised in the writ petition relates to violation of principles of natural justice, respondents are willing to give notice to the petitioner on the conclusions reached against him in the vigilance report and give him an opportunity to submit its reply/explanation/objections and then the 5^th respondent will hear the petitioner and then pass appropriate order.

¶8

In view of the said consensus, the impugned order of respondent No.5, being violative of principles of natural justice, is set aside and the entire issue stands remitted to the 5^th respondent, who shall give notice to the petitioner with regard to the conclusions reached against him in the report.

¶9

Since the petitioner already has a copy of the vigilance report, the petitioner shall file its response to the said notice within four weeks from the date of receipt of the notice and thereafter the 5^th respondent shall fix a date for hearing, intimate the petitioner, hear him, and take appropriate decision in the matter, in accordance with law. Impugned proceedings of the 5^th respondent are accordingly set aside and the matter is remitted to the 5^th respondent to comply with the directions as mentioned above.”

¶10

Miscellaneous Petitions, if any, pending in this Writ Petition shall stand closed. No costs.

¶11

_______________________ VILAS V.AFZULPURKAR, J

¶12

Date: 25-01-2016 Prv

¶13

HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE VILAS V.AFZULPURKAR

¶14

W.P.No.883 of 2016

¶15

25-01-2016

¶16

Prv

Ivrcl Infrastructure and Projects Limited, v. State of Andhra Pradesh rep. by its Principal Secretary

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Ivrcl Infrastructure and Projects Limited, v. State of Andhra Pradesh rep. by its Principal Secretary

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

Dabbiru Muralidhar Rao Vs The Joint Sub-Registrar, Stamps and Registration

Thota Bikshapathi Vs State of Telangana

Challa Mutyalaiah, S/o Nagappa Vs State of Andhra Pradesh

Yalakonda Kondala Rao Vs The State of Telangana

Rudararaju Thirupalamma, Vs State of Andhra Pradesh

Sri N.Naga Venkata Siva Sainath Naidu Vs The State of Telangana, Represented by the Principal