Disposed

A.Sriramulu, Khammam Dist. v. Chief Engineer (Oandm) A.P. Genco, Khammam Dist. and Another

Telangana HC8 Nov 2024WP/20558/2007

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In this order, the Telangana High Court found that the petitioner and respondents are within the territorial limits of Andhra Pradesh post-reorganization. The Registry was directed to transfer the writ petition to the High Court of Andhra Pradesh, after which the instant petition was closed without costs.

What did the court decide?

The Registry directed to transfer the bundle to the High Court of Andhra Pradesh. The writ petition is closed on this file.

A.Sriramulu, Khammam Dist. Vs Chief Engineer… — Service and Employment | Telangana HC (2024)

¶1

13217 1

¶2

HIGH COURT FOR^{THE STATE OF TELANGANA} AT HYDERABAD (SPecial Original Jurisdiction)

¶3

FRIDAY ,THE EIGHTH^{DAYOF NOVEMBER} TWO THOUSAND AND^{TWENTY FOUR}

¶4

PRESENT

¶5

THE HONOURABLE^{SRI JUSTICE N.TUKARAMJI}

¶6

WRIT PETITION^{NO:205580F 2007}

¶7

Between:

¶8

A. Sriramulu, S/o.Polaiah,^{Aged about 48} .years^{, Oc!.} ?ytlp^{Operator, R/o'} Donkaraya^{Village,Y Ramavaram (M). Khammam Dlstnct}

¶9

..PETITIONER

¶10

AND

¶11

The Chief^{Engineer (O&M). A P Genco, L.S H?E S, Mothugudem, Khammam} Dist.

¶12

Z. ine oivlsional^{Engineer(o&M), CanalPower House' Donkaraya'Khammam} District

¶13

...RESP.NDENT'

¶14

Petition under^{Arlicle226 of the constitution of lndia praying that in the} circumstances stated^{in theaffrdavrtfiledtherewith,the HighCourt maybe} pleased to call for the^{records from the Respondentshereinby issuinga Writ'} Order or Direction^{more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus by} Jeitiring rhe impugned^{memo No CE/OandM/LS/Adm/c 4to.No.279012007,dt.} ia-g_zoh as arbitrary^{i egat. unlust. contraryto law, un sustainable in law also} on i".t. and in^{violaiion of erti"i".14 a^d 21 of the Constitutionof lndia and} consequentfy set^{aside thermpugnedorder dt. 28-8-2007 and grantall such} other attendant benefits

¶15

Counsel for the^{Petitioner:SRI- P. SRIDHAR RAO}

¶16

Counsel for the^{Respondents:SRI PAKALA VENKATA} SURYANARAYANA^{REP MS. V. UMA DEVI (SC FOR GENCO)}

¶17

The Court made^{the following:ORDER}

¶18

THE HON'BLE SRIJUSTICE N. TUKARAMJI

¶19

WRIT PEITION No.20558 ot 2007

¶20

ORDER:

¶21

ln spite of listing the matter under the caption 'for orders', none has appeared for the petitioner.

¶22

Heard Mr. Pakala Venkata Suryanarayana, learned counsel representing the Standing Counsel for A.P. Genco.

¶23

This writ petition has been filed with a prayer for issuance of a Writ in the nature of writ of mandamus declaring the impugned Memo No.CE/O&M/LS/Adm/C.4/D.No279O|2OO7, dated 28.08.2007 as arbitrary, illegal, unjust and to set aside the same.

¶24

Learned counsel for the respondents would submit that the impugned memo is pertaining to the disciplinary action and award of punishment against the writ petitioner who was pump operator working in Donkaraya village, Y.Ramavaram mandal, Erstwhile Khammam District and the respondents are from Mothugudem of Erstwhile Khammam District. However, after reorganization of the States, the petitioner and the respondents are within the territorial limits of State of Andhra Pradesh. Thus the appropriate

¶25

¶26

jurisdiction to determine the issue in the writ^{petitionwouldbe the} High Court of Andhra^{Pradesh'As such, the writ petitionhas to} be transferred^{to the High Court concerned.}

¶27

A perusal of materials^{on record,that the petitioner and the} respondents' cause^{of actionwithin the jurisdiction of the State of} Andhra Pradesh^{which comes within the jurisdiction of High Court} of Andhra Pradesh.^{That being the position, the Registryis} directed to take^{appropriate steps for transmissionof the bundle} to the High Court^{of Andhra Pradesh at the earliest'}

¶28

With this direction,^{the writ petition is closedon this file and} the Registry^{is directed to delete the entriesas pendency of this} Court. There^{shall be no order as to costs.}

¶29

As a sequel,^{pendangmiscellaneouspetitions if any, stands}

¶30

closed.

¶31

sDl-N.^SRIHARI REGIS ASSISTA ,fiRuE^coPYll sE N OFFICER

¶32

'"' i $: BB B fiI'u"ufi ['8E0ft 53P#[?KEJ?'.33I"r 5. rwo^{co CoPtes} ^ iJ \k

HIGH COURT

DATED:08111t2024

lHE s l'4
(.,
+

ORDER

WP.No.20558 of 2007

CLOSING THE WRIT PETITION WITHOUTCOSTS ?t <5a", t c*d!)

A.Sriramulu, Khammam Dist. v. Chief Engineer (Oandm) A.P. Genco, Khammam Dist. and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

A.Sriramulu, Khammam Dist. v. Chief Engineer (Oandm) A.P. Genco, Khammam Dist. and Another

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

Sh Chandrasekhar Vs the Nalgonda Dist. Co. Op. Central

Madhucon Granities Ltd., Vs Employees State Insurance Corp. and Another

Ch.Yadagiri, Hanumakonda Vs Northern Power Dist.Co.of Ap Ltd., Warangal

A.P. Power Transmission of Corporation Hyderabad, Vs the Addl Industrial Tribunal Cum and Another

Navothu Pundareekam Vs Amand Bal Raju

S. Venkata Chary, Kmnr Dist. Vs Karimnagar Dist. Milk Producers Mutually Aided Coop. Union