The High Court dismissed a writ petition challenging an Administrative Tribunal order which issued a notice instead of suspending the petitioner. The Court held no adverse decision was taken yet.
Writ petition dismissed; WPMP dismissed as infructuous.
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.
HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY AND HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE G.SHYAM PRASAD
WRIT PETITION No.26049 of 2017
Date:04.8.2017
Between : G.Lilly, W/o K.Bhaskar ..... Petitioner And: The State of A.P., reptd by its Principal Secretary, Social Welfare Department, Hyderabad and eight others. .....Respondents Counsel for the petitioner: Mr. Vara Prasada Rao Counsel for the respondents: GP for Social Welfare (AP)
The Court made the following:
CVNR, J & GSP, J WP.No.26049 of 2017 Dated:04.8.2017
2
ORDER : (per Hon’ble Sri Justice C.V.Nagarjuna Reddy)
Order, dated 13.7.2017, in Original Application No.1898 of 2017 on the file of the Andhra Pradesh Administrative Tribunal at Hyderabad (for short ‘the Tribunal’) is assailed in this Writ Petition.
A perusal of the impugned order shows that the Tribunal has issued notice before admission returnable in four weeks and posted the case to 16.8.2017.
Mr. Vara Prasada Rao, the learned counsel for the petitioner, submitted that the Tribunal ought to have considered the request of the petitioner for suspending the order impugned in the said O.A., whereby she was placed under suspension only because she raised voice against respondent No.8 protesting his ill-behaviour and misconduct.
In our opinion, the discretion exercised by the Tribunal in issuing notice, instead of granting an interim order, cannot be subject matter of a Writ Petition as, no decision adverse to the interests of the petitioner has been taken so far by the respondents. Therefore, we are not inclined to entertain this Writ Petition.
The Writ Petition is, accordingly, dismissed, however, with liberty to the petitioner to avail a fresh remedy in the event, she fails to secure relief before the Tribunal.
CVNR, J & GSP, J WP.No.26049 of 2017 Dated:04.8.2017
3
As a sequel to dismissal of the Writ Petition, WPMP.No.32305 of 2017 filed by the petitioner for interim relief is dismissed as infructuous.
JUSTICE C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY
JUSTICE G.SHYAM PRASAD
04th August 2017
DR
1 issue framed by the court
Whether the High Court should entertain a writ petition challenging the Tribunal's decision to issue a notice instead of granting interim relief under O.A. No. 1898 of 2017.
G. Lilly
The State of A.P.
C.V. Nagarjuna Reddy
G. Shyam Prasad
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
