Dismissed

K.Ramanaiah v. The State of Andhra Pradesh

Telangana HC6 Dec 2018WP/41622/2018

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Dismissing a writ petition challenging a Tribunal direction to exhaust an alternative remedy, this court held that the futility of a similar appeal in another district does not exempt a litigant from exhausting statutory remedies. The petition was dismissed leaving leave to file the statutory appeal.

What did the court decide?

Writ petition dismissed; leave granted to file statutory appeal within two weeks.

K.Ramanaiah Vs The State of Andhra… — Constitutional and Fundamental Rights | Telangana HC (2018)

¶1

THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTI CE SANJAY KUMAR AND THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTI CE M.GANGA RAO

¶2

WRI T PETI TI ON No.41622 of 2018

¶3

ORDER : (per Hon’ble Sri Justice Sanjay Kumar)

¶4

Personal service of notice by registered post with acknowledgment due having been permitted upon respondents 4 to 24, learned counsel for the petitioners filed a memo in proof of service, which would demonstrate that some of them have been served while in the case of others, the notices were returned as ‘unclaimed’ as per the tracking report of the Postal Department. As this would amount to deemed service, we are of the opinion that the issue of service stands settled.

¶5

Sri B.Srinarayana, learned counsel for the petitioners, would state that the present writ petition was filed aggrieved by the direction of the Andhra Pradesh Administrative Tribunal, Hyderabad, in O.A.No.2391 of 2018 filed by the petitioners, vide its order dated 31.10.2018, requiring them to take recourse to the alternative remedy of appeal in the first instance before knocking on its doors. Learned counsel would state that this direction has become superfluous in the light of the Memorandum dated 10.09.2018 issued by the Director General of Police, Andhra Pradesh, rejecting an appeal on the same lines in relation to Kurnool District and therefore, there would be no point served in the petitioners taking recourse to the appellate remedy when the result thereof is already known.

¶6

We are however not persuaded to agree.

¶7

When the statute prescribes an efficacious alternative remedy of appeal, it is not open to a litigant to state that as a similar appeal has

¶8

¶9

already been entertained and an adverse order has been passed therein, he need not take recourse to the statutory hierarchy of remedies.

¶10

The writ petition is accordingly dismissed leaving it open to the petitioners to file the statutory appeal within two weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. The said appeal shall be considered on its own merits and in accordance with law, uninfluenced by the dismissal of this writ petition.

¶11

Pending miscellaneous petitions, if any, shall also stand dismissed.

¶12

No order as to costs.

¶13

SANJAY KUMAR,J

M. GANGA RAO, J
Date: 06.12.2018
IBL

K.Ramanaiah v. The State of Andhra Pradesh

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

K.Ramanaiah v. The State of Andhra Pradesh

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

G. Gattumallu Vs The Director of Scheduled Castes Development Department

The Chief Conservator of Forests Vs K.Ramanijaneyulu

B.R.Leelavathi Vs The State of Andhra Pradesh

Chairman, Central Board of Excise and Customs, New Delhi and 2 Vs Y.Ramanuja Reddy, Hyderabad and Another

The Union of India., Centra Board of Excise and 2 Others Vs a.Swamy, and Another

The Government of Andhra Pradesh represented by its Vs Nakirakanti Yakaiah