Andhra Pradesh High Court - Amravati
Pulari Venkat Rao, vs State Of Andhra Pradesh on 8 July, 2025
APHC010006922025
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADES
AT AMARAVATI
(Special Original Jurisdiction)
TUESDAY,THE EIGHTH DAY OF JULY
TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE CHALLA GUNARANJAN
WRIT PETITION NO: 454 OF 2025
Between;
1. Pulari Venkat Rao,, S/o Mohana Rao, Aged about 34 years, Occ-
Prison Warder, Currently working at Central Prison, Visakhapatnam.
2. S.Ashok Kumar, S/o Lakshmanrao, Aged about 34 years, Occ- Prison
Warder, Currently working at Central Prison, Visakhapatnam.
3. Nagaraju Marrapu, S/o Appalnaidu, Aged about 37 years, R/o
Ravivalasa Village, Occ- Prison Constable, Currently working at
Central Prison, Visakhapatnam.
4. Raju Surada,, S/o Krishna, Aged about 30 years, Occ- Prison Warder,
Currently working at Central Prison, Visakhapatnam.
5. Ganivada Sembhu Naidu,, S/o Ramana, Aged about 35 years, Occ-
Prison Constable, Currently working at Central Prison, Visakhapatnam.
6. Boddana Jaya Krishna,, S/o Simhachalam, Aged about 35 years, Occ-
Prison Warder, Currently working at Central Prison, Visakhapatnam.
7. N.Damodararao, S/o Surya rao,Aged about 35 years. Occ- Prison
Warder, Currently working at Central Prison, Visakhapatnam.
8. Chukka Jagadeesh,. S/o Tirupati Rao (Late),Aged about 29 years Occ
Prison Warder, Currently working at Central Prison, Visakhapatnam,
9. Srinivasarao Akshinthala,, S/o Venkataraju, Aged about 36 years, Occ-
Prison Warder, Currently working at Central Prison, Visakhapatnam.
10. S.Apparao, S/o Suryanarayana (Late), Aged about 35 years
Occ- Prison Constable, Currently working at Central Prison,
Visakhapatnam.
11. Pinninti Ramakrishna,, S/o Apparao, Aged about 34 years, Occ
Prison Constable, Currently working at Central Prison, Visakhapatnam.
12. Budumuru Padma Kumar,, S/o Appalasuri, Aged about 36 years,
Occ Prison Constable, Currently working at Central Prison,
Visakhapatnam.
13. Gorle Appala Naidu,, S/o Suri (Late), Aged about 34 years, Occ
Prison Constable, Currently working at Central Prison, Visakhapatnam.
14. M.Prasad,, S/o Sathi Babu, Aged about 35 yeras, Occ. Prison
Constable, Currently Working at Id No-2153804 Central Prison
Visakhapatnam.
...Petitioners
AND
1. State of Andhra Pradesh, represented by its Principal Secretary Home
Department, Secretariat Buildings, Velagapudi, Guntur District.
2. The Director General of Prisons and Correctional Services, Andhra
Pradesh, NH-5 Service Road, Mangalagiri, Guntur District.
3. The Superintendent FAC, Central Prison, Visakhapatnam.
4. The Deputy Inspector General of Prisons, Coastal Andhra Range,
Central Prison, Rajahmahendravaram, Andhra Pradesh.
...Respondents
Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying that in the
circumstances stated in the affidavit filed therewith, the High Court may be
pleased to issue an order or orders or direction or an appropriate writ more
particularly one in nature of Writ of Mandamus declaring the action of the
Respondents more particularly Respondent No.3 in issuing the impugned
Order Dated 29.12.2024 vide Proceedings. No. CPA//SP/OS(E)/8822/ 2024 in
pursuant to Memo.No.Estt-4/3/2024, dt.29.12.2024 issued by 2nd respondent
relieving the petitioners from Central Prison Visakhapatnam as wholly illegal,
arbitrary, violative of Articles 14, 16 and 21 of the Constitution of India,
without following due process of law and consequently Quash and Set-Aside
the Proceedings. No. CPA//SP/ OS(E) /8822/2024, Dt 29.12.2024 issued by
the 3rd Respondent in pursuant to Memo.No.Estt-4/3/2024, dt.29.12.2024
issued by 2nd respondent and to direct the respondents more particularly 3rd
respondent to retain the Petitioners in Central Prison Visakhapatnam.
lA NO: 1 OF 2025
Petition under Section 151 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 operation of impugned Order Vide Proceedings. No.
CPA//SP/OS(E)/8822/2024. Dt:29.12.2024 issued by the 3rd Respondent in
pursuant to Memo.No. Estt- 4/3/2024, dt.29.12.2024 issued by 2nd
respondent pending disposal of the writ petition pending disposal of the
above writ petition
Counsel for the Petitioners: SRI CHALLA AJAY KUMAR
Counsel for the Respondents: GP FOR SERVICES I
The Court made the following order:
APHC010006922025
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH
AT AMARAVATI [3506]
(Special Original Jurisdiction)
/
TUESDAY,THE EIGHTH DAY OF JULY
TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE CHALLA GUNARANJAN
WRIT PETITION NO: 454/2025
Between:
1. PULARI VENKAT RAO,, S/0 MOHANA RAO, AGED ABOUT 34
YEARS, OCC- PRISON WARDER, CURRENTLY WORKING AT
CENTRAL PRISON, VISAKHAPATNAM.
2. S.ASHOK KUMAR, S/0 LAKSHMANRAO, AGED ABOUT 34 YEARS,
OCC- PRISON WARDER, CURRENTLY WORKING AT CENTRAL
PRISON, VISAKHAPATNAM.
3. NAGARAJU MARRAPU, S/0 APPALNAIDU, AGED ABOUT 37
YEARS, R/0 RAVIVALASA VILLAGE, OCC- PRISON CONSTABLE,
CURRENTLY WORKING AT CENTRAL PRISON, VISAKHAPATNAM.
4. RAJU SURADA,, S/0 KRISHNA, AGED ABOUT 30 YEARS, OCC-
PRISON WARDER, CURRENTLY WORKING AT CENTRAL PRISON,
VISAKHAPATNAM.
5. GANIVADA SEMBHU NAIDU S/0 RAMANA, AGED ABOUT 35
YEARS, OCC- PRISON CONSTABLE, CURRENTLY WORKING AT
CENTRAL PRISON, VISAKHAPATNAM.
6. BODDANA JAYA KRISHNA,, S/0 SIMHACHALAM, AGED ABOUT 35
YEARS, OCC- PRISON WARDER, CURRENTLY WORKING AT
CENTRAL PRISON, VISAKHAPATNAM.
7. N.DAMODARARAO, S/0 SURYA RAO,AGED ABOUT 35 YEARS,
OCC- PRISON WARDER, CURRENTLY WORKING AT CENTRAL
PRISON, VISAKHAPATNAM.
8. CHUKKA JAGADEESH,, S/O TIRUPATI RAO (LATE),AGED ABOUT
29 YEARS OCC- PRISON WARDER, CURRENTLY WORKING AT
CENTRAL PRISON, VISAKHAPATNAM
9. SRINIVASARAO AKSHINTHALA S/0 VENKATARAJU, AGED
ABOUT 36 YEARS
OCC- PRISON WARDER, CURRENTLY
WORKING AT CENTRAL PRISON, VISAKHAPATNAM.
\
\
10.S.APPARAO, S/0 SURYANARAYANA (LATE), AGED ABOUT 35
YEARS OCC- PRISON CONSTABLE, CURRENTLY WORKING AT
CENTRAL PRISON, VISAKHAPATNAM.
11. PINNINTI RAMAKRISHNA, S/0 APPARAO, AGED ABOUT 34
YEARS, OCC PRISON CONSTABLE, CURRENTLY WORKING AT
CENTRAL PRISON, VISAKHAPATNAM.
12.BUDUMURU PADMA KUMAR,, S/0 APPALASURI, AGED ABOUT 36
YEARS, OCC PRISON CONSTABLE, CURRENTLY WORKING AT
CENTRAL PRISON, VISAKHAPATNAM.
13.GORLE APPALA NAIDU S/0 SURI (LATE), AGED ABOUT 34
YEARS, OCC PRISON CONSTABLE, CURRENTLY WORKING AT
CENTRAL PRISON, VISAKHAPATNAM.
14.M.PRASAD,, S/0 SATHI BABU, AGED ABOUT 35 YERAS, OCC.
PRISON CONSTABLE, CURRENTLY WORKING AT ID NO-2153804
CENTRAL PRISON VISAKHAPATNAM.
...PETITIONER(S)
AND
1. STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY
HOME DEPARTMENT, SECRETARIAT BUILDINGS, VELAGAPUDI,
GUNTUR DISTRICT.
2.THE DIRECTOR GENERAL OF PRISONS AND CORRECTIONAL
SERVICES, ANDHRA PRADESH, NH-5 SERVICE ROAD,
MANGALAGIRI, GUNTUR DISTRICT.
3.THE SUPERINTENDENT FAC, CENTRAL PRISON,
VISAKHAPATNAM.
4.THE DEPUTY INSPECTOR GENERAL OF PRISONS, COASTAL
ANDHRA RANGE, CENTRAL PRISON, RAJAHMAHENDRAVARAM,
ANDHRA PRADESH.
...RESPONDENT(S):
.>- .i
>r h"
Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying that in the
circumstances stated in the affidavit filed therewith, the High Court may be
pleased tomay be pleased ISSUE an order or orders or direction or an
appropriate writ more particularly one in nature of Writ of Mandamus declaring
the action of the Respondents more particularly Respondent No.3 in issuing
the impugned Order Dated 29.12.2024 vide Proceedings. No.
CPA/SP/OS(E)/8822/2024 in pursuant to Memo.No.Estt-4/3/2024,
dt.29.12.2024 issued by 2nd respondent relieving the petitioners from Central
Prison Visakhapatnam as wholly illegal, arbitrary, violative of Articles 14, 16
and 21 of the Constitution of India, without following due process of law and
consequently Quash and Set-Aside the Proceedings. No. CPA/SP/ OS(E)
/8822/2024, Dt 29.12.2024 issued by the 3rd Respondent in pursuant to
Memo.No.Estt-4/3/2024, dt.29.12.2024 issued by 2nd respondent and to
direct the respondents more particularly 3rd respondent to retain the
Petitioners in Central Prison Visakhapatnam and to pass
lA NO: 1 OF 2025
Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated
in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased
may be pleased Suspend the operation of impugned Order Vide Proceedings.
No. CPA/SP/OS(E)/8822/2024. Dt:29.12.2024 issued by the 3rd Respondent
in pursuant to Memo.No.Estt- 4/3/2024, dt.29.12.2024 issued by 2nd
. respondent pending disposal of the writ petition pending disposal of the above
writ petition and to pass
Counsel for the Petitioner(S):
1.CHALLAAJAY KUMAR
Counsel for the Respondent(S):
1.GP FOR SERVICES I
The Court made the following:
THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE CHALLA GUNARANJAN
WRIT PETITION No.454 of 2025
ORDER:
Petitioners 14 in number working as Prison Warder/Prison Constable assailed memorandum No.Estt-4/03/2024, dated 29.12.2024 and consequential proceedings No.CPA/SP/OS(E)/ 8822/2024, dated 29.12.2024, by which they have been transferred to be wholly illegal, arbitrary, violative of Articles 14, . 16 and 21 of Constitution of India.
2. (a) Petitioners were initially appointed as Warders/Constables in Central Prison at Warangal in different spells of time and subsequently, were transferred to Central Prison at Visakhapatnam, some in the year 2022 and others in the year 2023. On 27.12.2024, during the normal course of duties, the petitioners and other staff were searched and checked by 3'^'^ respondent, as the same was softly resisted, the same annoyed superiors.
(b) Later, on 28.12.2024, when petitioners tried to reason with 4*'^ respondent, they were treated harshly and even threatened with police case. Treating the same as exhibiting gross . misconduct, willful disrespect and insubordination, one of the \ 2 CGR, J W.P. No.454 of 2025 Warder namely B.Vasudeva Rao stated to be suspended by • proceedings dated 28.12.2024 issued by 4**^ respondent and immediately, on the next day, the same was revoked, however. the said Warder has been transferred to District Jail at Chittoor. Simultaneously, 2^^^ respondent issued memorandum dated 29.12.2024 transferring petitioners along with others to various stations, basing on which, 3^^ respondent passed consequential proceedings issuing relieving orders for 66 employees, which included petitioners herein. Assailing the same, present writ petition is filed.
3. (a) respondent filed counter inter alia stating that the 2'^'^ respondent has issued memo dated 29.12.2024 transferring as many as 66 employees working in different capacities in different prisons, which is purely an administrative decision. Later, 3'"'^ respondent issued consequential relieving orders and that now petitioners have all joined at their new stations and are working there. With respect to the allegation of search and inspection in the prison, it is stated that based on information received that there is possible presence of contraband, suspected to be mobile phone in Penna Block of Central Prison, Visakhaptnam, there was a surprise check, in particular 3 wM CGR, J W.R No.454 of 2025 petitioners 5 and 6, who were on duty at entrance of Penna Block were checked and the said check was conducted in guards resting room in terms of the memos dated 01.12.1998, 06.12.2005 and 16.02.2013, issued by Director General of Prisons and instructions of Ministry of Home Affairs, Government of India.
(b) Subsequently, on 31.12.2024, two mobile phones, data . cables and power bank were traced as buried underground in Penna Barrack. Aforesaid incident is stated to do nothing with the administrative transfers. The said search was found to be not to the liking of petitioners and other guarding staff, therefore, they had conducted protest in front of Central Prison demanding to end any further searching of guarding staff, which caused hindrance to the operations and posing grave threat to prison security as there were about 2059 prisoners stationed.
(c) It is also stated that in order to subside the protest, the officers of prison have entertained dialogue with protestors and after series of negotiations, on the assurance of Deputy Inspector General of Prisons, Costal Andhra Region, the protesting staff have silenced and resumed to their duties. 4
CGR, j W.P. No.454 of 2025
(d) In sum and substance, the counter tried to distance the transfers and the incident that had happened on 27'^ and 28*^ December, 2024.
4. (a) Petitioner filed reply denying the contents of counter with respect to the allegations made against petitioners 5 and 6 in particular and others in general with respect to the incident occurred on 27**^ and 28**^ December, 2024 and further also pleaded that after transfer, petitioners have been issued charge memos dated 17.02.2025 and 18.02.2025, based on the incident occurred on 28.12.2024 for misconduct, willful disrespect, ■ indiscipline, willful dis-obedience and insubordination.
(b) It is also stated that the subsequent event of issuance of charge memo clearly goes to show that they have been transferred on punitive grounds, but not on administrative grounds.
5. Heard Sri Challa Ajay Kumar, learned counsel for petitioner and learned Assistant Government Pleader for Services - I appearing for the respondents.
. 6. Learned counsel for petitioner, while reiterating the coiTtentions raised in writ petition, mainly contended that transfer of petitioners though styled as on administrative grounds, the 5 CGR, J W.P. No.454 of 2025 same is on punitive grounds, inasmuch as the triggering point being incident that had occurred on 2T'^ and 28*'^ December, 2024, therefore, but for the said incident, petitioners would not have been transferred. In support of the said contention, he placed on the following judgments:
1. Kommana Ramesh v. State of Andhra Pradesh^
2. Somesh Tiwari v. Union of India and others^
3.The General Manager, South Central Railway v.
S.Srinivasa Rao^
4. T.R.P. Singh v. TSRTC, rep. by its Managing Director^
7. Per contra, learned Assistant Government Pleader contended that transfer of petitioners is merely on administrative ground and inasmuch as 66 employees working in different posts and stations were transferred, it cannot be said that petitioners were specifically targeted and transferred to colour it as punitive nature. He further contended that the judicial review with respect to transfers is very limited and unless it is clearly established that there is violation of statutory provision or transfer is swayed by malafides, the same cannot be interdicted. In support of his submissions, he placed reliance on the following judgments; i 2021 (2) ALD 381 2 (2009) 2 see 592 2 Telangana High eourt judgment in W.P. No.24023 of 2010 Telangana High eourt judgment in W.P. No.15175 of 2020 6 CGR, J W.R No.454 of 2025
1. C.Narasimha Murthy v. State of Andhra Pradesh®
2. PrI. Chief Conservator of Forests v. M.Jagadeesh Chandra Prasad®
3. Sri Pubi Lombi v. The State of Arunachala Pradesh & Ors7
4. Shilpi Bose (MRs) and others v. State of Bihar and others®
8. Perused the record.
9. Judicial interference in cases of transfers of Government Servants is fairly settled by Hon'ble Apex Court in various judgments. It is apt to refer to the recent judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court in Publi Lombi's case (supra 7), which observed thus:
"15. In view of the foregoing enunciation of law by judicial decisions of this Court, it is clear that in absence of (i) pleadings regarding malafide, (ii) non-joining the person against whom allegation are made, (iii) violation of any statutory provision (iv) the allegation of the transfer being detrimental to the employee who is holding a transferrable post, judicial interference is not warranted. In the sequel of the said settled norms, the scope of judicial review is not . 5 2024(1) ALT 514 (AP) 5 Judgment of this Court in W.A. No.325 of 2019 7 ^024 see OnLine SC 279 8 199^1 Supp (2) sec 659 7 CGR, J W.P. No.454 of 2025 ^ ./ permissible by the Courts in exercising of the jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India."
10. In N.K.Singh v. Union of India^, Hon'ble Apex Court considered the aspect of transfer and prerogative of an employer in effecting transfers and observed thus;
"23. However, acceptance of the appellant's claim would imply that no other officer in the CBI is competent and fit to conduct the sensitive investigation and his successor would stand automatically discredited without any such allegation being made or hearing given to him. That indeed is a tall order and impermissible in this proceeding where the other officers are not even participants. The tendency of anyone to consider himself indispensable is undemocratic and unhealthy. Assessment of worth must be left to the bona fide decision of the superiors in service and their honest assessment accepted as a part of service discipline. Transfer of a'government servant in a transferable service is a necessary incident of the service career. Assessment of the quality of men is to be made by the superiors taking into account several factors including suitability of the person for a particular post and exigencies of administration. Several imponderables requiring formation of a subjective opinion in that sphere may be involved, at times. The only realistic approach -is to leave it to the wisdom of that hierarchical superiors to make that decision. Unless the decision is vitiated by mala fides or infraction of 9 (1994) 6 see 98 8 CGR, j "4' .
W.R No.454 of2025 any professed norm or principle governing the transfer, which alone can be scrutinised judicially, there are no judicially manageable standards for scrutinising all transfers and the courts lack the necessary expertise for personnel management of all government departments. This must be left, in public interest, to the departmental heads subject to the limited judicial scrutiny indicated.
24. The private rights of the appellant being unaffected by the transfer, he would have been well advised to leave the matter to those in public life who felt aggrieved by his transfer to fight their own battle in the forum available to them. The appellant belongs to a disciplined force and as a senior officer would be making several transfers himself. Quite likely many of his men, like him, may be genuinely aggrieved by their transfers. If even a few of them follow his example and challenge the transfer in courts, the appellant would be spending his time defending his actions instead of doing the work for which he holds the office. Challenge in courts of a transfer when the career prospects remain unaffected and there is no detriment to the government servant must be eschewed and interference by courts should be rare, only when a judicially manageable and permissible ground is made out. This litigation was ill- advised."
11. In State of M.P. v. S.S.Kourav^°, Hon'ble Apex Court held as follows:
10
(1995) 3 see 270 9 CGR, J W.R No.454 of 2025 ^A "The courts or tribunals are not appellate forums to decide on transfers of officers on administrative grounds. It is for the administration to take appropriate decision and such decisions shall stand unless they are vitiated either by mala fides or by extraneous consideration without any factual background foundation. In this case transfer order having been issued on administrative grounds, expediency of ' those orders cannot be examined by the Court."
12. All the above referred judgments of Hon'ble Apex Court dealt with transfers in general, as an exception testing a case of transfer whether to be in lieu of punishment, Hon'ble Apex Court in Somesh Tiwari v. Union of lndia^^ held thus:
"16. Indisputably an order of transfer is an administrative order. There cannot be any doubt whatsoever that transfer, which is ordinarily an incident of service should not be interfered with, save in cases where inter alia mala fide on the part of the authority is proved. Mala fide is of two kinds- one malice in fact and the second malice in law.
The order in question would attract the principle of malice in law as it was not based on any factor germane for passing an order of transfer and based on an irrelevant ground i.e. on the allegations made against the appellant in the anonymous complaint. It is one thing to say that the employer is entitled to pass an order of transfer in administrativeexigencies but it is another thing to say that the order of transfer is passed by way of or in lieu of (2009) 2 see 592 10 CGR, j W.P. No,454 of 2025 punishment. When an order of transfer is passed in lieu of punishment, the same is liable to be set aside being wholly illegal."
13. Keeping in view the law laid down by Hon'ble Apex Court in aforesaid judgments, being conscious of the fact that the judicial review in transfers is very restrictive and narrowed down only to the extent of clear tests laid down that are violation of statutory provisions, pleading malafide and non-joining the person against whom such allegations are made, the facts of the present case are tested here under.
14. Petitioners are all stated to be transferred to Central Prison at Visakhapatnam during the periods 2020 and 2023. They all have now been transferred from said station to different stations • by impugned memorandum dated 29.12.2024 issued by respondent. The said memorandum clearly specifies that the transfers effected therein were on account of administrative convenience and about 66 employees working in different prisons/jails came to be transferred. Consequently, by proceedings dated 29.12.2024, relieving orders were issued by 3"^^ respondent. Petitioners contend that though memorandum refers to the reason for transfer being on account of > administrative convenience, it is not so and only in order to CGR, J W.R No.454 of 2025 punish them, they were transferred, which is clearly punitive. therefore, on such extraneous consideration, the transfers are vitiated. Heavy reliance has been placed on the Hon'ble Apex Court in Somesh Tiwari's case (supra 2), which later came to be followed by coordinate bench of this Court in Komma Ramesh's ' case (supra 1).
15. Ex facie, by going with impugned memorandum, the reason for transfer is stated to be on administrative convenience. Petitioners claim that because of incident that had happened on 27/28*^ of December 2024, they have been transferred and later charge memos dated 17.02.2025 and 18.02.2025 were issued to them imputing misconduct, misbehaviour and in subordination with respect to the incident that occurred on the night of 28*'^ December, 2024. Petitioners tried to link these events to contend that the transfers are clearly punitive in nature. At first blush, the argument advanced by petitioners appears to be persuading, however, deep analysis of the same go to show that may be the incident occurred on 28.12.2024 just before a day of effecting transfers, as charge memos came to be issued much later on 17.02.2025 and 18.02.2025, it cannot be said that . transfers are effected as a measure of punishment. The event of 12 W.R No.454 of 2025 transfers and initiation of disciplinary proceedings relating to the incident happened on the night of 28.12.2024 may have close proximity in time but as respondents have initiated disciplinary proceedings, the same itself would disclose that separate and independent course of action has been chosen exercising the powers conferred on disciplinary authority under A.P. Civil Services (CC&A) Rules, 1991, for which there is a definitive procedure and consequence provided, it is too far fetch to say that the transfers are measure of punishment. Had respondents merely stopped with transfer without any further action, there would have been some force in the contention of petitioners. The transfer orders go to show that about 66 employees came to be transferred on the said day, not petitioners alone. • 16. Several imponderables requiring formation of special opinion in sphere may be involved and it has to be left to the wisdom of hierarchal superiors to make decision on transfers. Even assuming that the incident occurred on 27/28'^ December, 2024 had incidentally weighed in the mind of 2'"'^ respondent and in his wisdom if decision is made to transfer, such decision will not be susceptible for judicial review unless it is pointed out that the 13 CGR, J W.R No.454 of 2025 r.' #', r same is vitiated by malafides or contrary to statutory rules of transfer.
V 17, Petitioners have either attributed malafides to any of officers nor joined them as parties to the present writ, therefore, such scenario does not arise. Though learned counsel for petitioner has tried to buttress his argument based on the judgment rendered by the Hon'ble Apex Court in Kommana Ramesh's case (supra 1) and Somesh Tiwari's case (supra 2) on over all consideration of facts and circumstances, this Court finds that though there is no quarrel with regard to ratio laid down in the said judgments, the same have no application to facts of present case. In view of the same, this Court is satisfied that petitioners have not made out any exception or satisfied the test laid down by Hon'ble Apex Court to interdict with the transfers effected.
18. Accordingly, this writ petition stands dismissed. No costs.
As a sequel, interlocutory applications pending consideration, if any, shall stand closed.
Sd/- M. SRINIVAS
ASSISTANT REGISTRAR
//TRUE COPY// I
SECTION OFFICER
One fair copy to the Hon'ble SRI JUSTICE CHALLA GUNARANJAN (For His Lordships Kind Perusal) To,
1. One CC to Sri. Challa Ajay Kumar Advocate [OPUC] ; V
2. Two CCs to GP for Services I, High Court of Andhra Pradesh [OUT]
3. 9 LR Copies
4. The Under Secretary, Union of India, Ministry of Law, Justice and Company Affairs, New Delhi.
5. The Secretary, A.P Advocates Association Library, High Court Buildings, Amaravathi.
6. Three CD Copies GSC HIGH COURT DATED:08/07/2025 ORDER WP NO. 454 OF 2025 SW anoh^ i • iT 16 JUl 2D2!i m O} .
-> y :aciior DISMISSING THE WP WITHOUT COSTS