Dismissed

N. Giridhar v. The State of Andhra Pradesh

Telangana HC18 Aug 2017WP/27624/2017

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Court dismissed a writ petition filed by an unsuccessful applicant against a Tribunal order. While dismissing the petition, the Court directed the respondent authority to consider the petitioner's explanation without being influenced by prior observations. A miscellaneous petition was found infructuous.

What did the court decide?

The state authority directed to consider petitioner's explanation independently without being influenced by previous memo; WP dismissed; WPMP dismissed as infructuous.

N. Giridhar Vs The State of Andhra Pradesh — Writ and Judicial Review | Telangana HC (2017)

¶1

HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY AND HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE GUDISEVA SHYAM PRASAD

¶2

WRIT PETITION No.27624 of 2017

¶3

Date:18.8.2017

¶4

Between : N.Giridhar, S/o N.V.Seshaiah ..... Petitioner And: The State of A.P., reptd by its Principal Secretary, Women, Children, Differently Abled & Senior Citizens Department, Velagapudi, A.P., and two others. .....Respondents Counsel for the petitioner: Mr. K.Ram Reddy Counsel for the respondents: GP for Services-I (AP)

¶5

The Court made the following:

¶6

CVNR, J & GSP, J WP.No.27624 of 2017 Dated:18.8.2017

¶7

¶8

ORDER : (per Hon’ble Sri Justice C.V.Nagarjuna Reddy)

¶9

This Writ Petition is filed by the unsuccessful applicant in Original Application No.2351 of 2017 on the file of the Andhra Pradesh Administrative Tribunal, Hyderabad, which declined to interfere with the show cause notice, vide Memo No.94/A/ 2017-1, dated 18.7.2017, issued by respondent No.3 based on memo, dated 07.02.2017 of respondent No.1.

¶10

On going through the impugned order of the Tribunal and the reasons contained therein, we do not find any error warranting our interference. However, Mr. K.Ram Reddy, the learned counsel for the petitioner, expressed an apprehension that since the said show cause notice issued by respondent No.3 was an off-shoot of memo No.5010/Estt.A1/2009-9, dated 07.02.2017, of respondent No.1, respondent No.3 may not objectively consider the petitioner’s explanation.

¶11

To allay this apprehension, respondent No.3 is directed to consider the petitioner’s explanation without being influenced by the observations made and the directions issued by respondent No.1 in memo, dated 07.02.2017. Needless to observe that if the petitioner feels aggrieved by any order passed by respondent No.3 on the statutory notice, he shall be free to avail appropriate legal remedy.

¶12

CVNR, J & GSP, J WP.No.27624 of 2017 Dated:18.8.2017

¶13

¶14

Subject to the above observation and direction, the Writ Petition is dismissed.

¶15

As a sequel to dismissal of the Writ Petition,

¶16

WPMP.No.34321 of 2017 is dismissed as infructuous.

¶17

JUSTICE C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY

¶18

JUSTICE GUDISEVA SHYAM PRASAD

¶19

18^th August 2017

¶20

N. Giridhar v. The State of Andhra Pradesh

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

N. Giridhar v. The State of Andhra Pradesh

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

A.Venkanna, Vs The Director of Animal Husbandry, Dairy Development and

Y.V. Siva Rama Krishna Vs N. Kasturi

D. Ramachander Reddy Vs The Government of Andhra Pradesh, Rep by its Principal

D.Ganesh, Vs The State of Andhra Pradesh

V.Appala Raju, Vs The State of Andhra Pradesh

A.Srinivas, Vs The State of Telangana