Allowed

Burgula Sudhakar v. The State of Telangana

Telangana HC18 Dec 2024WP/31605/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court dismissed a writ petition filed by an assistant superintendent challenging his reversion order on the ground of arbitrariness and violation of constitutional rights, allowing the petition to be withdrawn with liberty to file fresh proceedings.

What did the court decide?

Permission to withdraw the writ petition with liberty to file a fresh writ petition was granted.

Burgula Sudhakar Vs The State of Telangana — Service and Employment | Telangana HC (2024)

¶1

[³³⁰¹ J

¶2

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

¶3

WEDNESDAY, THE EIGHTEENTH DAY OF DECEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FOUR

¶4

PRESENT

¶5

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE PULLA KARTHIK

¶6

WRIT PETITI ON NO:3 1605 0F 2024

¶7

Between:

¶8

Burgula Sudhakar, S/o Prakash Raj, Aged (54) years, Occupation Asst. Prohibition and Excise Superintendent, Nagarkurnool, Rl/o Nagarkurnool, Telangana

¶9

...PETITIONER

¶10

AND

¶11

1 vvv vruu The State of Telangana. Rep py its principal Sec r etary, Revenue lfxcise anO Commercral Tax). Secretariit. nvo"raujj."-'

¶12

2 The Commissioner of prohibition and Excise, Telangana, 1st Floor, Abkari Bhavan. Nampally, Hyderabad.

¶13

...RESPONDENTS

¶14

Petition under Articre 226 of rhe constitution of rndia praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit fired therewith, the High court may be pleased to issue a writ, order or direction, more particurarry in the nature of writ of [vandamus decraring the action of the 1st Respondent in issuing Memo No. 18214rEx. 1(1)12024- 2 dated 4.10.2024 reverting the petitioner and consequent to the above [r,4emo, the 2nd Respondent issued a show cause notice dated 23.10.2024 vide cr. No. 59/2023lcpErA2 for effecting reversion of the petitioner from the post of Asst. prohibition and Excise Superintendent, Nagarkurnoor to the post of Piohibition and Excise rnspector, as arbitrary and iflegar, against the G. O. Ms. No. 2, Sociat Wetfare (SW_ RORI) Department, dated 9_ 1_ 2004. contrary to the Multi Zone Regulations and presidential order, violates the Principles of Naturar Justice, contravene Article 14, 16 and 21 of the constitution of lndia and consequen y set aside the same.

¶15

e 4, h€ iol

¶16

IANO:1OF2 024

¶17

Petition under rsection i 5l cpc praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High court may be pleased to suspend the show cause notice dared 23-10-2024 vide cr. No. 59/2023lcpElA2, issued by the 2nd Respondent, in pursuance of [,4emoNo. 1B214rEx.r(1)/2024- 2 dated 04.10.2024, dur ng the pendency of the writ petition.

¶18

Counsel for the Petitioner: SRI C.VIVEKANANDA REDDy

¶19

Counsel for the Respondents: Gp FOR PROHIBITION EXCISE

¶20

The Court made the following: ORDER

¶21

THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE PULLA I{ARTHIK

¶22

WRIT PETITION No.31605 oF 2024

¶23

ORDE R:

¶24

Sri C.Vivekanand Reddy, learned counsel for the petitioner seeks permission of this Court to withdraw the present Writ petition with a liberty to file fresh Writ petition.

¶25

Permission is accorded

¶26

Accordingly, this Writ petition is dismissed is withdrawn with liberty as prayed for. There shall be no order as to costs

¶27

Miscellaneous petitions pending, if any, shall stand

¶28

closed.

¶29

SDA A. SRINIVASA REDDY ASS ANT REGISTRAR

//TRUE COPY//

ECTION OFFICER

To,

One CC to SRI C.VIVEKANANDA REDDY,^Advocate IOPUCI

¶35

2 Two CCs to GP FOR PROHIBITION^{EXCISE, High Court for the Stateof} Telangana at Hyderabad [OUT]

2 Two CD Copies

BSR GJP LU?

HIGH COURT

DATED:^1811212024

ORDER

-.=-.Slir,
(
],
t
? B rtB lt?5 C.1
2o
*

¶45

WP.No.31605^{of 2024}

¶46

DISMISSING^{THE WRIT PETITION}

¶47

AS WITHDRAWN,

¶48

WITHOUT^COSTS

¶49

n
\r-
,T ,V5

Burgula Sudhakar v. The State of Telangana

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Burgula Sudhakar v. The State of Telangana

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Thotamalla Nageswara Rao Vs The Singareni Collieries Co. Ltd.

Mr.Tamas Alexander , Thomas Alexander D Cruz Vs The Singareni Collieries Company Limited

Vallabhi Suresh Vs The State of Telangana

Vadithya Naresh Vs The State of Telangana

Telukuntla Sunitha Vs The State of Telangana

Dr. M. Venkateswarlu Vs State of Telangana