K. APPARAO NAIDU v. UNION OF INDIA
Case at a glance
Outcome
Dismissed
In that view of the matter, the Writ Petition is dismissed for
Provisions considered
- Constitution of India art. 226
- Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 s. 151
Key paragraphs
- Para 33. In that view of the matter, the Writ Petition is dismissed for non-prosecution. There shall be no order as to costs. As a sequel thereto, interlocutory applications, if any, pending in this Writ Petition shall stand closed.
Judgment
Cause title
THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE B V L N CHAKRAVARTHI
WRIT PETITION NO: 47890/2018 Between:
1. K. APPARAO NAIDU, S/O LATE K.PAIDAYYA AGED 60 YEARS, OCC. RETIRED EMPLOYEE R/O. D.NO.38-31-1- 12/5,GREEN GARDENS MARRIPALEM, VISAKHAPATNAM- 530018 ...PETITIONER
AND
1. UNION OF INDIA, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY MINISTRY OF SHIPPING, ROAD TRANSPORT AND HIGHWAYS PARIVAHAN BHAVAN-1, PARLIAMENT STREET, NEW DELHI-001
2. THE VISAKHAPATNAM PORT TRUST, PORT AREA, ITS REPRESENTED BY VISAKHAPATNAM-530035 CHAIRMAN.
3. THE APPELLATE AUTHORITYCUM DEPUTY CHAIRMAN, VISAKHAPATNAM PORT TRUST UNDER VISAKHAPATNAM PORT EMPLOYEES (CLASSIFICATION, CONTROL AND APPEAL) REGULATIONS, 1968 VISAKHAPATNAM PORT TRUST PORT AREA, VISAKHAPATNAM-530035
4. THE CHIEF MATERIALS MANAGERCUMDISCIPLINARY, AUTHORITY VISAKHAPATNAM PORT TRUST PORT AREA, VISAKHAPATNAM-530035.
5. CENTRAL INDUSTRIAL SECURITY FORCE CISF MINISTRY OF HOME AFFAIRS, GOVERNMENT OF INDIA SOUTH SECTOR AT VISAKHAPATNAM PORT TRUST PORT AREA, VISAKHAPATNAM-530035 ITS ASSISTANT COMMANDANT. REPRESENTED BY 2
6. CENTRAL VIGILANCE COMMISSION, SATARKATA BHAVAN, A-BLOCK GPO COMPLEX, INA, NEW DELHI - 110 023 REPRESENTED BY ITS DIRECTOR. ...RESPONDENT(S)
: 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 a writ order or direction more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus, the proceedings No.QPER/D-CELL/MMD/NKR/716/06, dated 27.06.2017 issued by the 3rd respondent and thereby dismissing my appeal conforming the punishment imposed by the 4th respondent on 04.1.2007 imposing penalty of recovery of loss of materials to a tune of rupees 3,90,000/- (Three lakhs nineteen thousand rupees only) in sixty installments as contravention of Visakhapatnam Visakhapatnam Port Trust Under Visakhapatnam Port Employees(Classification, Control and Appeal) Regulations. 1968 and The Central Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1965 and consequently to set aside the same by ordering fresh investigation in to the entire charges by an independent agency such as 6th respondent in the interest of justice and pass illegal, arbitrary, and in absolute IA NO: 1 OF 2024 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 to grant leave to the Respondent to file counter and pass such other order(s) as the Court deems fit and proper in the interest of justice and in the circumstances of the case. Counsel for the Petitioner:
1. P SHASHI KIRAN Counsel for the Respondent(S):
1. THENEPALLI NIRANJAN SC FOR CENTRAL. GOVT
2. P SRI RAM The Court made the following: 3 THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE B.V.L.N.CHAKRAVARTHI
ORDER:
WRIT PETITION No.47890 OF 2018 None appeared for the petitioner either physically or through video conference, though the matter is posted under the caption ‘for dismissal’. There was no representation for the petitioner on the previous adjournments also.
Learned counsel representing Sri P.Sri Ram, learned counsel for respondent Nos.2 to 4 is in attendance.
Operative part
In that view of the matter, the Writ Petition is dismissed for non-prosecution. There shall be no order as to costs. As a sequel thereto, interlocutory applications, if any, pending in this Writ Petition shall stand closed.
05.12.2025 Pmk ______________________________ JUSTICE B.V.L.N. CHAKRAVARTHI 4 16 THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE B.V.L.N. CHAKRAVARTHI WRIT PETITION No:47890 OF 2018 Date: 05.12.2025 Pmk
Questions this judgment answers
What did the Court decide in this case?
The Court recorded the following disposition: In that view of the matter, the Writ Petition is dismissed for
Which statutory provisions did this judgment involve?
Constitution of India — art. 226; Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 — s. 151.
Which court decided this case, and when?
Andhra Pradesh High Court, on 05 Dec 2025. The bench was B V L N CHAKRAVARTHI.
Precedent status how later indexed judgments have treated this case
No known negative treatment found in the Courts & Cases corpus.
This is a result about the indexed corpus, not a finding that the judgment remains good law. Coverage may be incomplete.