Dismissed

H. Ramesh v. The State of Telangana

Telangana HC12 Dec 2024WP/27093/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Telangana was presented with a writ petition contesting the illegal appointment of another individual as a driver in replacement of the petitioner by the Municipality. After recording the counsel's submission that the cause of action expired due to the efflux of time rendering the petition infructuous, the court dismissed the writ petition.

What did the court decide?

The writ petition was dismissed as infructuous. There shall be no order as to costs.

H. Ramesh Vs The State of Telangana — Service and Employment | Telangana HC (2024)

¶1

[³³⁰¹ ]

¶2

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

¶3

THURSDAY ,THE TWELFTH DAY OF DECETVBER TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FOUR

¶4

PRESENT

¶5

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE PULLA KARTHIK

¶6

WRIT PETITION NO: 27093 OF 2024

¶7

Between:

¶8

H. Ramesh, S/o. H. Rangaswamy, Aged about 30 Years, Occ. Driver, R/o H.No.439, Wadapalli Village, Waddepalli It4andal, Jogulamba Gadwal District

¶9

,..PETITIONER

¶10

AND

¶11

1 The State of Telangana, Rep. by its Principal Secretary, lr,4unicipal Administration and Urban Development Department DR B.R. Ambedkar State Secretariat Buildings, Hyderabad.

¶12

The Commissioner and Direclor, lvlunicipal Administration, Hyderabad, Telangana.

¶13

The Waddepally Municipality, Represented by its Commissioner, Gadwal, Jogulamba Gadwal District

¶14

The Additional Collector (LBS), Gadwal, Jogulamba Gadwal District.

¶15

H. Raghu, S/o H. Madhanna, Aged unknown, R/o H. No.43B-1 , Waddepalli Village AND Mandal, Gadwal, Jogulamba Gadwal District.

¶16

...RESPONDENTS

¶17

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 an appropriate writ, order or direction more particularly one in the nature of WRIT OF IVANDAMUS declaring the 2nd respondent impugned memo in Roc.No.724625120241M3 D1.23.O8.2024 in appointing the 5th respondent as multipurpose driver for JCB/sanitation vehicles to the 3rd respondent municipality in place of petitioner as illegal, arbitrary, violation of principles of natural justice and violative of Article 19 (1) (g), 21 of the Constitution of lndia and consequently set aside the aforesaid impugned order by directing the respondent to continue the petitioner as multipurpose driver for JCB/sanitation vehicles to 3rd respondent municipality

¶18

lA NO:^'t OF 2024

¶19

Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the writ petition, the High Court may be pleased to suspend the operation of impugned memo in Roc,No.724625120241M3 D1.23.08.2024 passed by the 2nd respondent with a direction to continue petitioner as multipurpose driver to JCB/sanitation vehicles to 3rd respondent municipality

¶20

Counsel for the Petitioner: SRI B. SHIVA RAM SHARMA REP., SRl. K RATHANGA PANI REDDY

¶21

Counsel for the Respondent Nos.1&2: GP FOR MCPL ADMN URBAN DEV Counsel for the Respondent No.3: SRI THOTA VENKATESHAM SC FOR MC Counsel for the Respondent NO.4: GP FOR REVENUE

¶22

Counsel for the Respondent NO.5: --

¶23

The Court made the following: ORDER

¶24

¶25

I I

¶26

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE PULLA KARTHIK

¶27

WRIT PETITION No.27O93 OF 2O2+

¶28

ORDER:

¶29

When the matter is taken up lor hearing, Sri^{B. Shiva} Ram Sharma, learned counsel^{representing K.Rathanga Pali} Reddy, learned counsel for the^{petitioner, submits that due to} efflux of time the cause in the^{present Writ Petitiondoes not} survive for adjudication and the^{matter hasbecome} infructuous.

¶30

Recording the above said submission,^{this Writ Petition} is dismissed as infructuous. There^{shal1 be no order as to} costs.

¶31

Miscellaneous petitions, if any, pending in this^Writ

¶32

Petition, shall stand closed.

¶33

SDi. L. VIJAYA LAXMI ASSISTAN REGISTRAR

,TRUE COPY//

C ION OFFICER

To,

One CC to SRl. K RATHANGA PANI REDDY Advocate IOPUCI

¶38

One CC to SRI THOTA VENKATESHATV SC FOR IVC [OPUC]

¶39

Two CCs to GP FOR IMCPL ADIVN URBAN DEV ,High Court for^{the Stateof} Telangana. [OUT]

¶40

Two CCs to GP for Revenue, High Court for the State of Telangana^at Hyderabad. [OUT]

¶41

Two CD Copies KKS GJP r

HIGH COURT

DATED:1211212024

ORDER

WP.No.27093 of 2024

(i
o
0 7 it, iJ'ii
lirl
\ ,." ,+
-t
t D€spr.: c

¶47

0
./2
//// ,/4J

¶48

DISMISSING THE WRIT PETITION AS INFRUCTUOUS WITHOUT COSTS

H. Ramesh v. The State of Telangana

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

H. Ramesh 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

Bandari Nirmala, Vs The State of Telangana

J. Krishna Rao Vs The State of Telangana

P.Muneswar Rao Vs The State of Telangana

D.Sammmaiah Vs The State of Telangana

Pallela Padma Vs The State of Telangana

Korsa Tirupatamma Vs The State of Telangana