Dismissed

B. Sandeep Kumar, S/o.Anand, v. The A.P. Power Generation Corporation Limited

Telangana HC24 Jul 2023WP/39263/2013

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In this writ petition, the petitioner challenged a suspension order on grounds of involvement in an unrelated criminal case. The Court dismissed the petition as infructuous because counsel informed the Court that no further orders were required and the subject matter had ceased to admit of any order.

What did the court decide?

http://draft2.mynlp.tech/well-known/not-found

B. Sandeep Kumar, S/o.Anand, Vs The A.P. Power… — Service and Employment | Telangana HC (2023)

¶1

[³³⁰⁴ ]

¶2

HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD (Special Originat Jurisdiction)

¶3

X/ONDAY, THE TWENTY FOURTH DAY OF JULY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY THREE

¶4

PRESENT

¶5

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE NAMAVARAPU RAJESHWAR RAO

¶6

WRIT PETITION NO: 39263 OF 201 3

¶7

Between:

¶8

B. Sandeef _K-umar, S/o.Anand, Occ A.E in K.T.p.S, R/o.e.No.BE 297, Bombay Colony, K.T.P-S. Paloncha, Khammam District.

¶9

...PETITIONER

¶10

AND

¶11

'1 . The A.P. Power Generation Corporation Limited, Vidyut Souda, Khairatabad, Hyderabad, Rep. by its f\rlanaging Director.

¶12

Z. llqQnqef Engineer,, A.P.Power Generation Corporation Limited, O and M, KTPS, Paloncha, Khammam District.

¶13

...RESPONDENTS

¶14

Petition Under Article 226 of the Constitution of lndia praying that 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 nature of writ of mandamus declaring the orders passed by the 2nd respondent vide Memo. No. CE/OandM/KTPS/Adm/A21D.No.464113, dt- 18-'1 1-2O13 in ptacing the petitioner under suspension on the ground that he is involved in a criminal case, which is not at all related to his official duty and even though he was not in iudicial^{custodybeyond} forty eight hours as illegal, arbitrary, abuse of process of law, violation of principles of natural justice and contrary to the legal propositions and set aside the same by directing the respondents to reinstate the petitioner into service as Assistant Engineer with all consequential benefits in the interest of^justice.

¶15

l.A.NO:1 OF 20 t!(u!! P. NO: 48773 O^F 2013)

¶16

Petition ilncer S;ection 151 CPC^{praying that tn the ::itC.lrnst:lrr(;i)sstated} in the affidavit lile(j i r :,upport of the^potrt on. the^{High Coutttr':ly lrer} lrlr:ased^to direct the resl cn3e rtr;^{lorerrstate tlre petitioner irto r;er' cr: .rs Assistant} Engineer by susrernr ng ihe or:lers^{passe:d by the 2nc re s I rtrllctll} 'rrde^[vlemo. No. CE/O& lri/K^TP Sl 'c m/A2lD.^{No 464/13} dt.^{18-1 1 2(13. p:r dirg drsposal of} the above writ J,etilio^I

¶17

Counsel for the l)etil orrer : Sri.Sreekanth^{Reddy Ambati}

¶18

Counsel for the Ilesg orrdents :^--

¶19

The Court made the ollowing ORDER

¶20

j I I l

¶21

THE HON'BLE SRI^{JUSTICENAMAVARAPURAJESIIWARRAO}

¶22

WRIT PETITION NO.39263 OF 2013

¶23

ORDER:

¶24

Today when the matter has tal<en up^{for hearing,} learned counsel for the^{petitioner informed} this^{Court that} no further orders are required and the subject matter^of the writ petition has become infructuous.

¶25

In vierv of the above submission made by^learned counsel for the petitioner, the lvrit^{petition is dismissed as} infructuous.

¶26

Pending miscellaneous appLications, if any,^sha11

¶27

stand ciosed.

¶28

SD/. MOHD. SANAULLAH ANSARI ASSISTANT REGISTRAR //rRUE coPY/' Qo \ SECTION OFFICER \

¶29

¶30

One CC to Sri.Sreekanth Reddy Ambati, Advocate [OPUC]

¶31

Two CD Copies

SA GJP

I I i

HIGH COL'R-'

DATED:24fi'" 1,2023

ORDER

WP.No.3926ti cf²⁰¹³

i.,;],',.
/ ',1: '1,
'?,'i
t' ,,,f,S iii
I :\ :, .t
, ,'l/
.:, ;/
".' ' it'
.- ::: I

¶39

DISN1ISSING^'I'IJ E \.P

¶40

AS INI.'RUCII LO UI;^{\VTTHOUTCOSTS.}

¶41

' 't-
,-)

B. Sandeep Kumar, S/o.Anand, v. The A.P. Power Generation Corporation Limited

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

B. Sandeep Kumar, S/o.Anand, v. The A.P. Power Generation Corporation Limited

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

Sudati Surender Rao , Sudhakar Rao, Warangal Dist Vs Chinthala Narahari, Warangal City and Dist and Anr.

B.Prabhakar, Hyderabad., Vs Ch.Subba Rao, Hyd and Anr, Rep Pp.

Radha Padmaja, Vs The State of Telangana

A.P.S.R.T.C and Another Vs Nemali Veera Swamy

Nemali Veera Swamy, Vs A.P.S.R.T.C.

Y Achamma and 3 Others Vs MD Ayaz and 2 Others