Research › Search › Judgment

High Court of Andhra Pradesh · body

2025 DAILYLAW 36953 (AP)

N.Minnadu, v. The Depot Manager

WP/29011/2018 · 2025-04-02

Venkata Jyothirmai Pratapa

body2025

Judgment text

Extracted from the PDF above. The PDF is authoritative.

APHC010610352018 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3396] WEDNESDAY, THE SECOND DAY OF APRIL TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE DR JUSTICE VENKATA JYOTHIRMAI PRATAPA WRIT PETITION No. 29011/2018 Between: N.Minnadu, ...PETITIONER AND The Depot Manager and Others ...RESPONDENT(S) Counsel for the Petitioner: 1. ELEVATED AS JUDGE Counsel for the Respondent(S): 1. VINOD KUMAR TARLADA The Court made the following: ORDER: The instant Writ Petition is filed by the Petitioner seeking indulgence of this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for the following relief: “ .... to issue a Writ Order or direction more in the nature of Mandamus declaring in action of the respondents in removing the petitioner from service through proceedings No.01/138(2)/2006-PPM dated 06.06.2007 issued by the 1st Respondent and consequential rejection of appeal by the 2nd Respondent dated 06.10.2007 and rejection of review by the 2nd Respondent dated 10.07.2008 and rejection of mercy petition by the 4th Respondent dated 22.07.2018 is arbitrary, illegal, unjust, and violative of Articles 14, 16 and 21 of the Constitution of India and also contrary to APSRTC Employees C.C& A Regulations and quash the same and consequently, declare that the petitioner is eligible to continue in service with all consequential benefits including salary increments seniority etc.” 2. The earlier Docket Proceedings would show that none represented for the Petitioner and the matter was directed to be listed today under the caption “For Dismissal”. 2 3. Despite the matter being listed under the caption “For dismissal”, none represented for the Petitioner today. 4. Learned Standing Counsel appearing for respondent-APSRTC is in attendance. 5. In that view, the Writ Petition is dismissed for non-prosecution. No order as to costs. Pending applications, if any, shall stand closed. DR.JUSTICE VENKATA JYOTHIRMAI PRATAPA Mjl/* 3 HON’BLE DR. JUSTICE VENKATA JYOTHIRMAI PRATAPA Writ Petition No. 29011 of 2018 02.04.2025 Mjl /*