Dismissed

G Bhakshi Naik v. The State of Telangana

Telangana HC7 Nov 2023WP/27439/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court permitted the petitioner to withdraw the writ petition challenging the punishment order imposed by TSRTC. The withdrawal was allowed with liberty to file a fresh petition later if the relief sought was not granted in the alternative remedy, and the petition was dismissed as withdrawn without costs.

What did the court decide?

The writ petition was dismissed as withdrawn with liberty to file a fresh petition if relief is not granted in the alternative remedy in the interest of justice.

G Bhakshi Naik Vs The State of Telangana — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Telangana HC (2023)

¶1

[^321e ]

¶2

H]GH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction)

¶3

TUESDAY, THE SEVENTH DAY OF NOVEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY THREE

¶4

PRESENT

¶5

THE HONOURABLE SMT JUSTICE P.MADHAVI DEVI

¶6

WRIT PETITION NO:27439 OF 2022

¶7

Between:

¶8

G Bhakshi Naik, S/o: Late G Pool Singh Naik,^{Aged about 39 years, Depot} manager, TSRTC Narayanakheed Depot,^R:/o Narayanakheed^village.

¶9

...PETITIONER

¶10

AND

¶11

The State of Telangana, repby its Principal Secretary,^{Transport, Roads and} Buildings Department, Erramanzil, Hyderabad.

¶12

The Managing Director, TSRTC, Bus Bhavan,^{Hyderabad, Telangana.}

¶13

The Executive Director, Engineering,^{TSRTC Bus Bhavan, Hyderabad,} Telangana.

¶14

The Regional Manager, Medak Region, Sangareddy

¶15

The Controller of stores, ZWS Karimnagar.

¶16

...RESPONDENTS

¶17

Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of^{lndiaprayingthat in the} circumstances stated in the affidavit filed therewith, the^{High Court may be} pleased to issue a Writ, order or direction more^particularly one in the nature of writ of Mandamus declaring the^{punishmentimposed by the third respondent l.e.} Executive Director E vide^proceedings No E 1 255(01)12020^{Dpt CPM KRMNDt:'l} Og 2021 and the rejection of appeal^passed by the^{Managing Directorvide} proceedings No EC/19(3)/2021 PD D|:301O612O22 as illegal, arbitrary and the punishment imposed is disproportionate to the mis-conduct committed and set aside the same and grant relief to the^petitioner in the^{interest of justice and fair} play.

¶18

lA NO: 1 OF 2022

¶19

Petition under Section 151 CPC^praying that in the circLrmstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the^petition, the High Court may be^pleased to examine the adverse remarks made by the executive director in the merit rating reports by summoning them and set aside the same as illegal, arbitrary.

¶20

Counsel for the Petitioner: SRI PAVAN KUMAR A.B.L.N.

¶21

Counsel for the Respondent No.1 : GP FOR ROADAND BUILDING

¶22

Counsel for the Respondent No.2 to 5: A RAVI BABU(SC FOR TSRTC)

¶23

The Court made the following: ORDER

¶24

THE HON'BLE^{SMT. JUSTICEP.MADHAVI DEVI}

¶25

WRIT PETITTON^{No.27439 of2O22}

¶26

ORDER:

¶27

Learned counsel^{for the petitionerseekspermissionof this} court to withdraw^{the present writ Petition and has also frled a letter} dated O3.11.2023^{to the Registrar (Judicial)stating as under:}

¶28

"I lumblg^{submit tlntpetitionerG'Bl;r"kshi Noik' rtthile} uorking filed. utit^{petition No.27439 oJ 2022,before this Hon'ble} High Court ctwllenging^{the punishmentorderimposed bg the} respondents.

¶29

Nout, the^{petitionersubmits aletter dated O3 ' 1 1 '2O23} reqtesting for^{tt-tith.dra utal of urit petition} filed^{by him and he taonts} to Wrsue the matter^{uith respondertbg uag of appealand reuision} further.^{The letter is enclosed hereuith.}

¶30

It is prayed that, this^{Hon'bleCourtmag permit the petitioner} to utith.d.rau^{th.e case utitho libertgto} iile fresh^{uitpetition in case} retief is not^{grantedin the altemoteremedgin the interest of justice} and for issue of necessary^orders-"

¶31

Permission is accorded.

¶32

3.Accordingly,theWritPetitionisdismissedaswithdrawnwith

¶33

liberty as^{prayedfor. There shall be no order as to costs'}

¶34

Miscellaneous^{petitions,if any, pending in this Writ Petition'} shall stand closed.

¶35

SD/. C. PRAVEEN KUMAR ASSISTANT REGISJRAR //TRUE COPY// rs'Lz' SECTION OFFICER

¶36

To,

¶37

'l . One CC to Sri Pavan Kumar A.B.L.N. Advocate [OPUC] 2. One CC to Sri A. Ravi Babu(SC foTTSRTC) [OPUC] 3. Two CD Copies

TJ GJP Pmg

HIGH COURT

DATED:0711112023

ORDER

WP.No.27439 of 2022

I
s ST4T5
.1<br>k
v
o I
I 5 0Ec 2t21 .b
o)o
,.)
+-
k,
t )[g i,rJc

¶44

DISMISSING THE WRIT PETITION AS WITHDRAWN

¶45

WITHOUT GOSTS.

¶46

@c*q ae.r>s,

G Bhakshi Naik v. The State of Telangana

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

G Bhakshi Naik v. The State of Telangana

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

Sri a Seenaiah Vs The State of Telangana

B.Ramesh Vs The Telangana State Power Generation of Company Limited (Tsgenco)

Lingathoti Dayakar Vs The State of Telanagana

G Bhakshi Naik Vs Principal Secretary

Smt. Battari Shyamala Vs The State of Telangana

Prof. K. Benjamin Vs Osmania University