The High Court dismissed the writ petition challenging directions by the Railway Claims Tribunal for personal appearance as infructuous, noting that the Tribunal had already dismissed the underlying application for default and the officer had appeared and apologized.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
[32s5 ]
IN THE HIGH GOURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction)
THURSDAY, THE TENTH DAY OF APRIL TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE N.V.SHRAVAN KUMAR
WRIT PETITION NO: 34798 OF 2016
Between:
Union of lndia, Rep. by its General Manager, South Central Railway, Secunderabad, I\rl. Sarni Naik, s/o. late Sri It/.D. Naik, aged 58 years, occupation Deputy CCM/CPO,
...PETITIONER
AND
...RESPONDENTS
Petition under Artrcle 226 of lhe Constitution of lndia praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed therewith, the High Court maybe pleased to issue a writ of Mandamus or any other appropriate writ, order or direction declaring the orders passed by the 1st respondent Tribunalon 19.9.2016 and 22.9.2016 in O.A.-ll (U) 482 oI 2005 directing the Divisional Rarlway lt/anager/Bezawada, to appear in person before it and subsequently rejecting the application to dispense with personal appearance of the office and further directing him to appear him on 18. 10.2016 as arbitrary, illegal, and set aside the same and direct the 1st respondent not to require thepresence of DRIVI/BZA on 18.10.2016 or any other date, in the interest ofjustice.
l.A. NO: 1 OF 2016(WPMP. NO: 42894 OF 2016)
Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in suppo( of the petition, the High Court may be pleased to suspend the orders passed by the 1st respondent Triburral on.1g.g.2016 and 22.9.2O16 in 0.A.-ll (U) 482 of 2OO5 directing the Divisionat Railway Manager/Bezawada. to appear in person before it and subsequenfly rejecting the application to dispense with personal appearance of the office and further directing him to appear him on 18.10.2016 pending disposal of the above writ petition, in the interest of justice.
Counsel forthe Petitioner : SRI L.PRANATHT REDDY, (Sr SC FOR CENTRAL GOVT) Counsel for the Respondents:
The Court made the following: ORDER
t
I
THE HONOURABLESRI JUSTICE N.V. SHRAVAN KUMAR
W.P. No.34798 of 2OL6
ORDER
Questioningthc orderspassed by the respondentNo.1,Railu'ay Claims Tribunal, on 19.O9.2016 and 22.09.2016 in O.A. II(U) 482 of 2O05 dirccting the Divisional Railway Manager f Bezawada, to appcar in person before it and subsequcntly rejecLing the apolication lo dispcnse with personal appearance of the office and further directing hin-r to appcar l-rim on 18.10.2016, pctilioner hled the present writ pctitron.
1 \vsl,.1 !1 P !,J..r r;()s.a20 L6
from personal appearance of the Divisional Rarilu.ay Managcr was re.;ected arld directed the mattcr to be listed on 1g. I 0 20 I 6
As a sequel, miscr:llancous applications, iI arl, peitding,
shall stand closed.
SD/.MOHD. ISMAIL PUTY REGISTRAR //TRUE COPY// (: SECTION OFFICER
i
To, l One CC to L.PRANATHI REDDY, (Sr SC FOR C TRAL GOW), [OPUC] 2. Two CD Copies BSK GJP
HIGH COURT
DATED:1010412025
ORDER
WP.No.34798 of 2016
O. 16.
e
.s
It
r<br>)
It 21 ,luru MiCi
* .* ,l
DISMISSING THE WRIT PETITION AS INFRUCTUOUS WITHOUT COSTS
.)
)
1 issue framed by the court
Whether the writ petition survives when the impugned tribunal proceedings have concluded and the dispute is no longer subsisting?
2 provisions across 2 enactments
Union of India
Railway Claims Tribunal, Secunderabad Bench
Mandalapu Sree latha
Mandalapu Sreemannarayana
N.V. SHRAVAN KUMAR
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
