Allowed

G Renuka v. State of Ap

Telangana HC4 Jan 2018WP/536/2018

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court allowed this writ petition challenging the Administrative Tribunal's refusal to restore an application dismissed for non-prosecution. The Court held that the Tribunal erred in requiring reasons for the previous counsel's absence after the petitioner changed representation and ordered the restoration of the original application.

What did the court decide?

Writ petition allowed; impugned order set aside; original application restored to be dealt with by the Tribunal.

G Renuka Vs State of Ap — Service and Employment | Telangana HC (2018)

¶1

3The Hon’ble Sri Justice V.RAMASUBRAMANIAN and

¶2

The Hon’ble Sri Justice M. GANGA RAO

¶3

+ WRIT PETITION No.536 OF 2018

¶4

% Date:04.01.2018

¶5

Between:

¶6

Smt. G. Renuka W/ o.Sri N. Madhava Rao, Hindu, age: 39 years, Occ: Staff Nurse, Presently Public Health Nurse (Teaching), MPHW (M), Training School, Eluru, West Godavari District.

¶7

… Petitioner Vs.

¶8

$ State of Andhra Pradesh, Rep. by its Principal Secretary, Health, Medical & Family Welfare Department, A.P. Secretariat, Amaravathi, Velagapudi, Guntur District and others.

¶9

... Respondents

¶10

! Counsel for Petitioner : Mr. N. Siva Reddy
^ Counsel for Respondents : G.P. for Services (AP)
< Gist :
> Head Note :
? Cases Referred : Nil

¶11

¶12

HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE V. RAMASUBRAMANIAN AND HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE M. GANGA RAO

¶13

WRIT PETITION No.536 OF 2018

¶14

ORDER: (per V. Ramasubramanian, J)

¶15

Challenging the refusal of the A.P. Administrative Tribunal to restore an application dismissed for non-prosecution, the petitioner has come up with the above writ petition.

¶16

Heard Mr. N. Siva Reddy, learned counsel for the petitioner. In view of the limited nature of the grievance, we directed the learned Government Pleader to take notice for the respondents.

¶17

The application filed by the petitioner in O.A. No.3072 of 2011 was dismissed for non-prosecution on 05.09.2013. Seeking restoration of the application, the petitioner filed a miscellaneous application, but the same was dismissed on the ground that there was no sufficient cause. Hence, the petitioner is before us.

¶18

It is seen from the impugned order that the Tribunal has taken a conservative approach in dealing with the application for restoration. Admittedly, the petitioner had to change his counsel after the previous counsel failed to appear. Therefore, the Tribunal cannot expect the petitioner and the present counsel to give reasons for the previous counsel’s absence on 05.09.2013.

¶19

Hence, the writ petition is allowed and the impugned order is set aside and the original application filed by the petitioner shall stand restored. It may be dealt with in accordance with law by the Tribunal. As a sequel thereto, miscellaneous petitions, if any, pending shall stand dismissed. No order as to costs.

¶20

_____________________ V. RAMASUBRAMANIAN, J

¶21

_______________

¶22

M. GANGA RAO, J

¶23

January 04, 2018 KTL

G Renuka v. State of Ap

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

G Renuka v. State of Ap

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Smt. K. Surya Kumari, Visakhapatnam Vs Secy Ministry of Defence New Delhi and 7 Others

M Hari Prasad and Anothers Vs Prl.Secretary ( Revenue) and 6 Others

Bhimavaram MUNiCIPAL, Commissioner Vs Durga Bhavani

The oriential insurance Co. Ltd. Vs High Court Legal Service Committee Rep by its Secretary

Dr.C.K.Ramesh Kumar, Vs prl.Secy., Labour dept.

K.K. Nagababu Vs Prl. Secy., Rev. (Endw) Dept. and 2 Ors.