Judgment · High Court
Case at a glance
- Bench
- G BIKSHAPATHY, P S NARAYANA
Provisions considered
- Constitution of India art. 226
Key paragraphs
- Para 77. With the direction indicated above, the Writ Petition is accordingly disposed of. No costs. ______________________ G. BIKSHAPATHY, J. ____________________ P.S. NARAYANA, J. Date: 10.02.2005 ES NOTE:- Issue copy in two days. B/o. ES To 1 The Special Chief Secretary to Government, Government of A.P.…
Judgment
Cause title
1 The Government, of A.P., rep. by the Special Chief Secretary to Government, G.A.(S.C.F.) Dept., Govt. of A.P., Hyderabad. 2 Sri V. Anankaiah, Addl. Secretary to Govt. ( Retd), H.No.8-3-677/17, Sri krishnadevaraya Colony, Yellareddyguda, Hyderabad-500045. .....RESPONDENTS
Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying that in the circumstances stated in the Affidavit filed herein the High Court may be pleased to Issue a Writ, Order or direction, preferably one in the nature of Writ of Certiorari, calling for the records, pertaining to M.A.No.1873/04 in O.A.S.R.No.5850/04, leading up to passing of the order dt. 29.10.2004 and be pleased to quash the said order dt. 29.10.2004 passed in M.A.No.1873/04, dismissing the said M.A. and rejecting the O.A.S.R.No.5850/04 as contrary to law, legal position, arbitrary and illegal and consequently be pleased to direct the A.P.A.T. Hyderabad to register and number O.A.S.R.No.5850/04 and take up for enquiry and disposal according to law. Counsel for the Petitioner: MR.S.AGASTYA SHARMA Counsel for the Respondents: GP FOR SERVICES-II The Court made the following:
ORAL ORDER:-
(PER GB,J.) The Writ Petition is filed assailing the order, dated 29.10.2004, passed by the A.P. Administrative Tribunal, in M.A.No.1873 of 2004 in O.A.S.R.No.5850 of 2004.
The petitioner claims the seniority of promotion on par with the 2nd respondent. But, however, since there was delay in filing the O.A., the Tribunal dismissed the M.A. on the ground of unexplained laches.
Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the matter was being adjudicated before the Government right from 12.12.2002 to 14.10.2003 and since there was no reply, the petitioner filed the O.A. for appropriate relief. Therefore, he submits that the Tribunal ought to have entertained the application.
We have heard the learned Government Pleader.
Inasmuch as there was no order passed by the Government either way, the O.A. itself is premature and therefore, no useful purpose will be served even by allowing the M.A.
Under those circumstances, we dispose of the Writ Petition with a direction to the first respondent to dispose of the representation filed by the petitioner dated
14.10.2003 within a period of four weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.
With the direction indicated above, the Writ Petition is accordingly disposed of. No costs. ______________________ G. BIKSHAPATHY, J. ____________________ P.S. NARAYANA, J. Date: 10.02.2005 ES NOTE:- Issue copy in two days. B/o. ES To 1 The Special Chief Secretary to Government, Government of A.P., G.A.(S.C.F.) Department, Government of A.P., Hyderabad. 2 Sri V. Anankaiah, Addl. Secretary to Govt. ( Retd), H.No.8-3-677/17, Sri krishnadevaraya Colony, Yellareddyguda, Hyderabad-500045. 3 2 CCs to the G.P. for Services-II, High Court of A.P., Hyderabad (OUT). 4 2 CD copies
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.