Research › Search › Judgment

High Court of Andhra Pradesh · body

2025 DAILYLAW 27889 (AP)

Syed Noor v. APSRTC rep.by its Vice Chairman & managing Director

WP/6242/2012 · 2025-03-13

K Manmadha Rao

body2025

Judgment text

Extracted from the PDF above. The PDF is authoritative.

APHC010396742012 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3310] THURSDAY ,THE THIRTEENTH DAY OF MARCH TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE DR JUSTICE K MANMADHA RAO WRIT PETITION NO: 6242/2012 Between: Syed Noor ...PETITIONER AND Apsrtc Rep By Its Vice Chairman Managing Director and Others ...RESPONDENT(S) Counsel for the Petitioner: 1. VENKATA RAMAIAH KARUMURI Counsel for the Respondent(S): 1. ARAVALA RAMA RAO The Court made the following Order: The Writ Petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, seeking the following relief: “…..to issue appropriate writ order direction especially in the nature of writ of mandamus declaring the action of the respondents in not selecting/promoting the petitioner as Superintendent (P) as arbitrary, without jurisdiction, violative of procedure, articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India and direct them to promote him on par his juniors with all consequential benefits….” 2 2. This Court, vide order, dated 06.03.2025 has passed the following docket order: “On 25.02.2025 the matter was directed to be listed under the caption for dismissal. But, due to change of roster the matter was reopened. Today also none appears for the petitioners. Registry is directed to print the name of Mr Aravala Rama Rao, learned counsel for respondents in the cause list. Post on 13.03.2025. No further time will be granted.” 3. Although this matter was posted with the condition that “no further time will be granted”, when the matter was called for hearing today, none appeared on behalf of the petitioner either personally or through advocate. It seems that the petitioner is not interested to prosecute the case. 4. Mr.Aravala Rama Rao, learned counsel for the respondents is present. 5. Therefore, the Writ Petition is dismissed for non-prosecution. There shall be no order as to costs. 6. As a sequel thereto, the miscellaneous petitions, if any, pending in this writ petition shall stand dismissed. ________________________ DR. K. MANMADHA RAO, J BMS