B. Swamy v. ThestateofTelangana,rep.byitssecretary,LawDepartment'secretariat'

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE P'SAM KOSHY THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE SUDDALA CHALAPATHI RAO WRIT PETITIO N NO:26376 0 F 2017 Between: B. Swamy, Son of Lachaiah' 40 years' FVo Plot No 143' Doctors Colony; Saroor Nagar, HYderabad. .....PETITIONER AND 1 2 3 4 5 ThestateofTelangana, rep.byitssecretary, LawDepartment'secretariat' Hyderabad Telanoana State Public Service Commission' Rep by its Commissloner' Nampitty, HYderabad. The A.P.P.S.C., rep.by its Commissioner' Viiayawada' Krishna District A P State. The State of A.P., Rep by its Secretary' Law Department' Secretariat' v.jirgrilol nmaiavaini,'cuntur District' VummedisrinivasaReddy, section officer, LawDepartment, ABlock,3rd Floor. Secretariat HYderabad ' .....RESPONDENTS Petition Under Article '226 of lhe Constitution of lndia praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed therewith' the High Court may be preased to issue a writ, order or direction more particurarly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus, declaring the in action on the part of the respondents 1 to 4 in not conducting an enquiry pursuant to the representations made by the petitioner on 3.,10.2015,9.10.2015 and 18.3.2017 along with the supporting material is illegal, arbitrary and contrary to the procedure contemplated by the Public Service commission' consequenry direct the respondents to take appropriate decision to cause enquiry on the representations submitted by me_ l.A.NO i1 oF 2017 WP MP.NO: 32720 0F 2017 petition Under Section 151 cpc praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit fired in support of the petition, the High court may be preased to direct the respondents to consider the representations submitted by the petitioner on 3-10-2015, 9_10_2015 and 18_3_2017 in accordan 'r rv I u \'-zu I / rIr accoroance with law, pending disposal of the writ petition.

Counsel for the petitioner : SRI GUNDARAM MANOJ GOUD Counsel for the Respondent No.1 : Ms M.SHAL|NI, cp FOR SERVICES- I Counsel for the Respondent No.2 : SRI C.SINDU KUMAR Counsel for the Respondent No.3 : SRt G.MALLTKARJUN RAO Counsel for the Respondent No.4 : SRI B.RAJESHWAR REDDY Counsel for the Respondent No.5 : SRI p.VISHNUVARDHANA The Court made the following ORDER REDDY t THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE P.SAM KOSHY AND THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE SUDDALA CHALAPATHI RAO WRIT PETITION No.26376 of 2017 ORDER, Qter Hon'ble Sri. Iustice P.Sam Koshy) Hcard Sri Gundaram Manoj Goud, learned counsel for the petitioncr. Ms M. Shalini, learned Government Pleader for Services-Il, appearing fbr respondent No.l, Sri C.Sindu Kumar, leamed counsel appearing lor respondent No.2, Sri G.Mallikarjun Rao, learned Govemment Pleader appearing for respondent No.3, Sri B. Rajeshwar Reddy. lcarncd Govemment Pleader for the State of Andhra Pradesh, appearing for respondent No.4 and Sri P.Vishnuvardhana Reddy, leamed counsel appearing for respondent No.5. Perused the record.

The instant Writ Petition is filed seeking the following relief: '' to issue a Writ, Order or direction, more particularly one rn thc nature of Writ of Mandamus, declaring the inaction on the part of the respondent Nos. I to 4 in not conducting an enquiry pursuant to the rcpresentations made by me on 03.10.2015,09.10.2015 and 18.01,2017 along with the supporting material as illegal, arbitrary and contrary to the procedure contemplated by the Public Service Commission, consequcntly direct the respondents to take appropriate decision to cause enquiry o the representations submittcd by me and pass such other order or orders as this Hon'ble Court may deem fit and proper in the circumstances of the

Today, when the matter is taken-up for hearing, the leamed counsel appearing lor respondent No.5 has submitted that he has also filed his counter. Nonetheless, he submits that the nature of relief that 2 has been sought lor is only seeking a direction to the respondents to take an appropriate decision on the representations made by the petitioner on 03. I 0.20 I 5, 09. I 0.20 I 5 and t g.03.20 I 7. [,eamed counsel appearing for respondent Nos. I and 2 does not have any objcction insofar as allorving the relief pral, ed lor by the petitioner directing the concemed oftlcials to take an appropriate decrsion on the representations filcd by the petitioner.

The Vummedi Srinivasa Reddy, Section Officer, Law department, A Block, 6 Two ccs to Gp FoR sERVTcES-r, High court for the state of rerangana at 7. One CC to SRt GUNDARA|V TVANOJ GOUD, Advocate tOpUCl of Andhra Pradesh, Guntur District 3rd Floor, Secretariat Hvderab-ad. Hyderabad. [OUT]

One CC to SRt p VTSHNUVARDHANA REDDY, Advocate (OPUC)

One CC to SRt B RA.lFgI.\ryAR REDDY, Advocate tOpUCi '

One CC to SRt G TVALLTKARJUN RAO, AOro"ji" tOpUCi' '1 1 . One CC to SRt C.S|NDU KUIVIAR, nOvocate IOFUb; 12. Two CD Copies SA PVL 2-'- I HIGH COURT DATED:06l08t10?s ORDER WP.No.26376 of 2017 ,/5- 1...9 - //{t /,// DISPOSING OF THE W.P WITHOUT COSTS. _/--'a:::r-\_ .4) - - 'rE .:',, :R ' '- ' '''il A 02 sEP zffi ' ) i\": // '--'---./ i i ,:/'