B. SOMULU v. APSRTC., MUSHIRABAD, HYDERABAD & ANOTHER
WP/26758/2005 · 2025-05-08
Ravi Cheemalapati
body2025
DailyLaw.ai
[ 2025 DAILYLAW 25330 (AP) · dailylaw.ai ]
DailyLaw.ai
[ 2025 DAILYLAW 25330 (AP) · dailylaw.ai ]
Judgment text
Extracted from the PDF above. The PDF is authoritative.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH :: AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) FRIDAY, THE NINTH DAY OF MAY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE RAVI CHEEMAL)^ WRIT PETITION NO: 26758 OF 2005 Between: B. Somulu, C/o Pedhapuri Pulla Rao Near Godavari District Court, Chintalapudi, West ...Petitioner AND
1. Andhra Pradesh State Road Transport Corporation Hyderabad rep by Vice-Chairman & Managing Director
2. The Regional Manager, Andhra Pradesh Corporation, West Godavari Region, Eluru , Mushirabad, State Road Transport ...Respondents praying Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed therewith, the High Court may be pleased to issue an order, direction or Writ in the nature of writ of mandamus of India is filed more particularly one any other appropriate Writ (1) respondents in appointing the petitioner or declaring the action of the on causal basis instead of regular appointmenf vide proceedings dated 23-2- 1998 as illegal and arbitrary; (2) declaring the action of the Respondents in not regularizing or appointing the services of the petitioner from the date of initial appointment in the post of HMV Drive Grade-ll in the backlog vacancies of Article 16 & 335 of Constitution of direct the respondents to regularize the India and consequently services of the petitioner from the date initial appointment i.e. 22-2-1998 with all including the scale of pay attached to the consequential benefits post.
f LA. NO: 1 OF 2005(WPMP. NO: 34389 OF 2005) Petition under Section 151 CPC is filed praying that in the support of the petition, the the Respondents to consider the petitioner for regularization his circumstances stated in the affidavit filed iin High Court may be pleased direct representation dated 14-9-2005 of the services with effect from 22-2-1998. Counsel for the Petitioner Counsel for the Respondents :
:SRI. K UDAYA SRI SRI VINOD KUMAR TARLADA (SC FOR APSRTC) The Court made the following:
APHC010358262005 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH ATAMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) ■ [3332] FRIDAY ,THE NINTH DAY OF MAY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE RAVI CHEEMALAPATI WRIT PETITION NO: 26758/2005 Between: B. Somulu ...PETITIONER AND Apsrtc Mushirabad Hyderabad Another and Others ...RESPONDENT(S) Counsel for the Petitioner: 1.KUDAYASRI Counsel for the Respondent(S):
1.VINOD KUMAR TARLADA (SC FOR APSRTC)
ORDER For no representation on behalf of the petitioner on 09.04.2025 and 25.04.2025 and since the matter is old, the matter came to be listed today under the caption "for dismissal". Despite the same, today also there is no representation for the petitioner. This shows that the petitioner is not interested to prosecute the matter.
In view of the above, this prosecution. There shail be no order as to costs. \ writ petition is dismissed for non- Pending miscellaneous petitions, if any, shall stand closed.
Sd/- A. VENU GOPAL RAO assistant registrar //TRUE COPY/ \v/ SECTION OFFICER To,
1. One CC to SRI. K UDAYA SRI Advocate [OPUC] One CC to SRI. VINOD KUMAR TARLADA (SC FOR APSRTC) Advocate [OPUC] Three CD Copies
2.
3. KSR
HIGH COURT DATED:09/05/2025
ORDER 5 16 SEP m °m tot WP.No.26758 of 2005 ^ Curreni i»ection ^ PATC DISMISSING THE WRIT PETITION WITHOUT COSTS AS NON-PROSECUTION