Dismissed¶42

M.Satyanarayana v. Telangana State Road Transport Corporation

Telangana HC13 Feb 2025WP/13595/2019

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Infructuous dismissal of Article 226 writ petition; TSRTC intra-corporate transfer challenge (coach builder moved from Adilabad to Mancherial Depot by Transfer Letter dated 29.06.2019) alleging disregard of petitioner's seniority and Depot Manager, Utnoor's letter dated 26.03.2019; Section 151 CPC application for interim suspension of transfer letter; disposed of on counsel's submission of efflux of time without any merits adjudication; no costs; Telangana High Court, decision dated 13-02-2025.

What did the court decide?

None; the writ petition was dismissed as infructuous, pending miscellaneous petitions were closed and no order was made as to costs. ¶42

M.Satyanarayana Vs Telangana State Road Transport… — Writ and Judicial Review | Telangana HC (2025)

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

None; the writ petition was dismissed as infructuous, pending miscellaneous petitions were closed and no order was made as to costs.

¶42

Issue for consideration

Whether the action of the 2nd Respondent in transferring the 3rd Respondent from Adilabad to Mancherial Depot as coachbuilder vide Transfer Letter dated 29.06.2019, ignoring the petitioner's seniority and the Depot Manager, Utnoor's letter dated 26.03.2019, was illegal, arbitrary and high-handed, and whether the Transfer Letter should be set aside and the petitioner transferred to Mancherial Depot as coachbuilder.

¶16

Ratio / Principle

Recording the submission of counsel for the petitioner that, due to efflux of time, the cause in the writ petition does not survive for adjudication and the matter has become infructuous, the Court dismissed the writ petition as infructuous.

¶26

Key takeaways

Miscellaneous petitions, if any, pending in the writ petition shall stand closed, and there shall be no order as to costs.ratio¶27

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Writ Petition No. 13595 of 2019 (M. Satvanaravana v. Telangana State Road Transport Corporation and others), High Court for the State of Telangana at Hyderabad, decided 13-02-2025 by a Single Judge. Petition under Article 226 seeking a Writ of Mandamus to declare illegal, arbitrary and high-handed the 2nd respondent's transfer of the 3rd respondent (coach builder) from Adilabad to Mancherial Depot by Transfer Letter dated 29.06.2019, allegedly ignoring the petitioner's seniority and the Depot Manager, Utnoor's letter dated 26.03.2019, and consequential setting aside of the transfer letter with a direction to transfer the petitioner to Mancherial Depot as coach builder; Interlocutory Application No. 1 of 2019 under Section 151 CPC sought suspension of the transfer letter. At hearing, counsel for the petitioner submitted that due to efflux of time the cause did not survive for adjudication and the matter had become infructuous. Recording the submission, the Court dismissed the writ petition as infructuous, closed pending miscellaneous petitions and made no order as to costs. No adjudication or finding was made on the merits of the transfer/seniority grievance.

¶1

t³³⁰¹ l

¶2

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

¶3

THURSDAY,THE THIRTEENTH DAY OF^FEBRUARY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE

¶4

PRESENT

¶5

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE^{PULI-A KARTHIK}

¶6

WRIT PETITION N O: 13595^{OF 2019}

¶7

Between:

¶8

M.Satvanaravana, S/o. Shankaraiah,^{Aged about 54 years, Occ} Builde'r in iSnfC Utnoor^{Depot,Rt/o.H.No. 20-19812' Jawahar} Mancherial, Mancherial District.

Coach Nagar,

...PETITIONER

AND

1 Telanoana State Road Transport^{Corporation, Representedby its Managing} Direct6r, RTC Bus Bavan^{Musheerabad,Hyderabad.}

¶13

The Regional ManagerTSRTC,^{AdilabadRegion,AdilabadDistrict.}

¶14

R.K.Reddy, S/o. Not Coach Builder (Now transferred^{Known to the to Petitioner, Mancherial), Agild Rl/o. about Chennur, Mancherial40} Yffrs'^pcq. , District.

¶15

...RESPONDENTS

¶16

Petition under Article²²⁶ ot^{the Constitutionof lndia prayingthat in the} circumstances stated in^{the affidavit filedtherewith,the High court may be} pleased to issue an order or orders more^{particularlyWrit of Mandamus, declaring} ihe action of the^{2nd Respondentin transferringthe 3rd Respondent from} Adilabad to Mancherial Depot^{as coachbuilder videTransfer Lefter No.} E21813(02',)12O19-RM ADB^{dated 29.06.2019 ignoring the Petitioner seniorityand} Letter dated 26.03.2019 addressed^{by the Depot Manager, Utnoor, as illegal,} arbitrary and highhanded and^{consequently set aside the TransferLetter No.} E2I813(02\12O19-RM ADB dated^{29.06.2019 and transfer the Petitionerto} Mancherial Depot as Coach builder

¶17

lA NO: 1 o F 2019

¶18

Petition under section 151 cpc praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit fited in support of the peiition, in" iign Court may U" pr"i.LJ t" suspend the Transfer Letter No. E2r81g(o2y2o1glnM ROe o6t"J isG2ors passed by the 2nd Respondent, pending disposal of the main writ petition

¶19

Counsel for the^petitioner: SRl. THOOM SRINIVAS

¶20

counsel for the Respondent Nos.1&2: sRr A RAV! BABU (sc FoR TsRTc)

¶21

Counsel for the Respondent nO.3: __

¶22

The Court made the following: ORDER

¶23

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE PULLA I(ARTHIK WRIT PETITIO N No.1 3595 0F 2019

¶24

ORDER:

¶25

When the matter is taken up for hearing, Sri B.Sathish, learned counsel representing Sri Thoom Srinivas, learned counsel for the petitioner, submits that due to efflux of time the cause in the present Writ petition does not survive for adjudication and the matter has become infructuous.

¶26