Legal Document View

Unlock Advanced Research with PRISMAI

- Know your Kanoon - Doc Gen Hub - Counter Argument - Case Predict AI - Talk with IK Doc - ...
Upgrade to Premium
[Cites 4, Cited by 0]

Andhra Pradesh High Court - Amravati

Dwarapureddy Sudhakara Rao vs The State Of Ap on 9 May, 2023

ii=Ii=
                 lN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH :: AMARAVATI
                            (SPECIAL ORIGINAL JURISDICTION)
                            TUESDAY, +HE'NINTH DAY OF MAY
                           ll^/O THOUSAND AND TWENTY THREE
                         \           : PRESENT:
             THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE VENKATESWARLU NIMMAGA
                          WRIT PET!T[ON NO: 902 OF 2023
    Between:                                                                                                  i `+++i
    Dwarapureddy Sudhakara Rao, S/o Late Suryanarayana, Aged 67 years, Flat No
    104, A Block, Sri Chakra Residency, Navodaya Colony, TadepallI', Guntur (Dist)-
    522501 I AP.
                                                                                                            Petitioner
                                                                                      AND
         1. The State of Andhra Pradesh, Rep. by its Principle Secretary, Water
            Resource Department, Secretariat, Velagapudi, Amaravati, Guntur District.
         2. The Engineer-in-Chief (Admn), Water Resources Department, Currency
            Nagar, Near Ramavarappadu ring road, Vijayawada-520002, Krishna District.
                                                        il'l >`+ ,                                          Respondents
                                            .       I        '   -I
                                                (                     l    -,.:_:




           petition under Article 226j`ofiihe Constitution of India praying that in the
    circumstances stated in the affidavit filled ,therewith, the High Court may be pleased
    to issue a Writ, Order or Orders idr+Diiections more parficulariy one in nature of Writ
    of Mandamus, declaring the facti6fi;`ofis the respondents in failing to obtain the
    concurrence from APPSC which is mandatory and thereby not concluding the
    departmental proceedin\gs initiated ;against the petitioner on 31.10.2009 vide
    G.O.Rt.No.1697, I & CAD (S'eyIVW).JIV `&``E-2) Deparfuent, though 14. years have
    lapsed as illegal, arbitrary, abnormal delay being unconstitutional, violative of Article
    14, 16, 21 of the Constitution of `India and consequently set aside/quash the
    departmental proceedings initiated I ag+`ainst the petitioner on 31.10.2009 vide
    G.O.Rt.No.1697186 CAD.(S6r4wllt};IVl& E-2) Department, on the ground of
    abnormal unexplained delay anduel6dse`al] the pensionery benefits
                                                ?-I,`-{T.,J.,:'t


    IA NO: 1 OF 2023:               .,I+f;lj ++\::`.,i-+.


             petition under section 151 `CPC: praying that in the circumstances stated in
     the affidavit filed in support of `tne-wirfet'Sctition, the High Court may be pleased to not
     to proceed further in relating to the+charge Memo dated 31.10.2009 G.O.Rt.No.1697
    'l and GAD (Ser.Vll) IV & EJ2) Depaitlndeht, issued against the Petitioner in View Of

    the abnormal delay, pending ci`i5pdsalief`WP 902 of 2023, on the file of the High
    Court.                                  i tL'j                        :i          .-+Ttl||

                                      rT+;++,~r           TTr{6.i-                  +jlLl}l/+       I
                                                                                                        \
           The petition comihgLch+for_healhg, upon perus'lng the Petition and the
    affidavit filed in support thereofr.andL+,the earlier Orders of the High Court
    dt.18.01.2023, 01.03.2023 &,-+04;04.2023       made herein and upon hearing the
    argumentsrof SRI G TUHIN KuMAR AilVOcate for the Petitioner, and of GP FOR
    SERVICES Ill fo-r the Respondents`,7the` Court made the following
                                                        (,f` i.jf i .i.I. i;--


    ORDER:

Reserved for orders.

•`f j^t 4 ;I I.`.,:\l:Stj€,;I..

1_,,;,.1,-I,,t¥, iS? i.4 `.*`rfu®JK-..I-. ;# furdrLul I

-\ `.-.I-- '_ <' i I I / I Interim order granted earlieTr.iS,-^eXtended ti" the date Of final Orders.

I '\. I`' |'.~- |t Sd/-K. KASIRAO ACHARl \-;`| ASS!STAN BAR :'3`-i,: IITECuE,a;OPY II Lj.,)-I. i SEC ICER ;1`-Ji....,l`' ` , ,(,:`:r'`,..-

To, •-i \i\` ~

1. One CC to SRI G TUHIN KUMAR Advocate [OPUC]

2. Two CCs to GP FOR SERVICES Ill, High Court of Andhra Pradesh. [OUT]

3. One spareCOPy I NBR A,...t*\=.;-i`.'L..* I ^+, +I \l..±-: .|T l`.i i 'at} !l ,A,<:;_±rfu¥£; ::-

i.-,,I. `J-nt I,.
t`.'' I+ ^ i+ I-
.i,:.,\. ;.o\, ,:ik-..:.i •{-,`'\li' '` ti (~ \^.I I * / i `tl'di=1.`` b,.I_I.-|€ -Jd:;,- I + fo ® I lGH COURT ( .
NV, J DATED:09/05/2023 ORDER WP.No.902 of 2023 fa .
INTERIM ORDER EXTENDED .lil,u^ ,, / . `-I'ard I.h-.I ;.;±dsudL.