N. Prasad, v. The A.P. State Board Transport Corporation,
WP/24032/2011 · 2025-07-03
Tarlada Rajasekhar Rao
body2025
DailyLaw.ai
[ 2025 DAILYLAW 37221 (AP) · dailylaw.ai ]
DailyLaw.ai
[ 2025 DAILYLAW 37221 (AP) · dailylaw.ai ]
Judgment text
Extracted from the PDF above. The PDF is authoritative.
APHC010626012011
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3330] FRIDAY, THE FOURTH DAY OF JULY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE
PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE TARLADA RAJASEKHAR RAO
WRIT PETITION NO: 24032/2011 Between:
1. N. PRASAD, S/O. N.CHANDRANNA R/O. NAYAKALLU VILLAGE, KALLUR MANDAL, KURNOOL DISTRICT.
...PETITIONER AND
1. THE A P STATE BOARD TRANSPORT CORPORATION, REP. BY ITS MANAGING DIRECTOR, HYDERABAD.
2. THE REGIONAL MANAGER, A.P. STATE ROAD TRANSPORT CORPORATION, KURNOOL.
3. PERSONNEL OFFICER, A.P. STATE ROAD TRANSPORT CORPORATION, KURNOOL.
...RESPONDENT(S)
Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed therewith, the High Court may be pleased to direct the respondents to forthwith consider the candidature of the petitioner for the unfilled post of Hammerman without calling for further Notification pending disposal of the Writ Petition
IA NO: 1 OF 2011(WPMP 29469 OF 2011 Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased
IA NO: 1 OF 2016(WVMP 2922 OF 2016 Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased to Vacate the interim orders dated 29.08.2011 in W.P.M.P.No. 29469 of 2011 in W.P. No. 24032 of 2011.
Counsel for the Petitioner:
1. G PURUSHOTHAM REDDY Counsel for the Respondent(S):
1. ARAVALA RAMA RAO(SC FOR APSRTC KKAC)
2. K VISWANATHAM (SC FOR APSRTC)
The Court made the following:
2 THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE TARLADA RAJASEKHAR RAO
WRIT PETITION NO. 24032 of 2011 ORDER:
Despite the matter listed under the caption ‘for dismissal’, there is no representation for the petitioner. It evinces that the petitioner has no interest in prosecuting his case.
Therefore, the Writ Petition is dismissed for non-prosecution. There shall be no order as to costs.
As a sequel thereto, miscellaneous Petitions pending, if any, shall stand closed.
___________________________________ JUSTICE TARLADA RAJASEKHAR RAO Date : 04.07.2025 SPP
3
THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE TARLADA RAJASEKHAR RAO
Writ Petition No:24032 of 2011
Date : 04.07.2025
SPP