K.ADISESHA REDDY v. THE DEPOT MANGR.APSRTC NELLORE.&2 OTHERS
WP/21896/2002 · 2025-08-20
Ravi Cheemalapati
body2025
DailyLaw.ai
[ 2025 DAILYLAW 4061 (AP) · dailylaw.ai ]
DailyLaw.ai
[ 2025 DAILYLAW 4061 (AP) · dailylaw.ai ]
Judgment text
Extracted from the PDF above. The PDF is authoritative.
APHC010026282002
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3332] THURSDAY,THE TWENTY FIRST DAY OF AUGUST TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE RAVI CHEEMALAPATI WRIT PETITION NO: 21896/2002 Between:
1. K.ADISESHA REDDY, S/O. CHINNA VENKATA SUBBA REDDY H.NO.6/58, EAST STREET, GUDUR,
...PETITIONER AND
1. THE DEPOT MANGR APSRTC NELLORE 2 OTHERS, A.P.S.R.T.C., VAKADU DEPOT, VAKADU POST, NELLORE DISTRICT.
2. THE REGIONAL MANAGER, A.P.S.R.T.C., NELLORE
3. THE PRESIDING OFFICER, LABOUR COURT, GUNTUR.
...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 toto call for the records relating to the award in I.D.No. 98/99 dt.20.7.2001 on the file of the Labour Court, Guntur District, and quash the same as arbitrary, illegal by way of issue of a Writ of Certiorari and consequently direct the respondents to reinstate the petitioner into service forthwith with continuity of service and full back wages, and pass.
IA NO: 1 OF 2002(WPMP 27435 OF 2002 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 expedite the hearing of the Writ Petition and pass. Counsel for the Petitioner:
1. ANDAPALLI SANJEEV KUMAR Counsel for the Respondent(S):
1. W V S RAJA RAJESWARI(SC FOR APSRTC)
2. A V SIVAIAH
The Court made the following: ORDER:
On 07.07.2025 and 31.07.2025, there was no representation for the petitioner and the matter was posted under the caption ‘for dismissal’.
2. Despite the matter being listed under the caption ‘for dismissal’, today also, there is no representation for the petitioner. This shows that the petitioner is not interested in prosecuting the case.
3. Accordingly, the Writ Petition is dismissed for non-prosecution. There shall be no order as to costs.
As a sequel, miscellaneous applications, pending if any, shall stand closed. _____________________________
JUSTICE RAVI CHEEMALAPATI
Date: 21st August, 2025 RKS