APHC010318552007 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3332] FRIDAY,THE SEVENTEENTH DAY OF OCTOBER TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE RAVI CHEEMALAPATI WRIT PETITION NO: 16787/2007 Between: 1. P.RAJENDRAN, CHITTOOR DIST., S/O.GOVINDAIAH DRIVER, APSRTC, KUPPAM DEPOT, KUPPAM, KUPPAM, MANDAL, CHITTOOR DISTRICT. ...PETITIONER AND 1. M D A P S R T C HYD ANOTHER, REP. BY ITS MANAGING DIRECTOR, MUSHEERABAD, HYDERABAD. 2. THE DEPOT MANAGER A P S R T C KUPPAM DEPOT, KUPPAM, CHITTOOR DISTRICT. ...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 issue an appropriate writ, order or direction more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus declaring the action of the 2nd respondent in issuing the impugned proceedings No.P2/255(01)/2007-KPM, dated 15.6.2007, ordering recovery of Rs.90,535/- from the salary of the petitioner, as wholly arbitrary, illegal, unjust, contrary to law, violative of principles of natural justice and accordingly set aside the impugned proceedings and to pass such other and further orders. IA NO: 1 OF 2007(WPMP 21414 OF 2007 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 suspend the impugned office order No.P2/255(01)/2007-KPM, dated 15.6.2007, of the 2nd respondent, pending disposal of the writ petition and to pass such other and further orders that may be deemed fit and proper in circumstances of the case. Counsel for the Petitioner: 1. S V MUNI REDDY Counsel for the Respondent(S): 1. W V S RAJESWARI 2. P VINAYAKA SWAMY (SC FOR APSRTC) The Court made the following: ORDER: Aggrieved by the action of the 2nd respondent in issuing the impugned proceedings dated 15.06.2007 ordering recovery of Rs.90,535/- from the salary of the petitioner, the present writ petition is filed. 2. Heard Sri S.V.Muni Reddy, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri Aravala Rama Rao, learned Standing Counsel for the respondents. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner while reiterating the contents of the affidavit contended that the 2nd respondent without conducting any enquiry and verifying the name of the party on whom the impugned proceedings should be drawn, had straight away issued proceedings on the petitioner who is no way concerned with the amount ordered for recovery and unless the said order is set aside, much injustice and hardship would be cause to the petitioner, as such, prayed to pass appropriate orders protecting the interest of the petitioner. 4. On the other hand, learned Standing Counsel for the respondents submitted that the petitioner filed W.P.M.P.No.21414 of 2017 in W.P.No.16787 of 2007 with a prayer to suspend impugned proceedings dated 15.06.2007 and this Court on 11.09.2007 dismissed the same directing the petitioner to go before appropriate Court and get the clarification as to the decree if there is any mistake in mentioning the name of the petitioner therein. He further submitted that till today, petitioner had not taken any steps in that regard, as such, the writ petition is liable to be dismissed and prayed to dismiss the writ petition. 5. Perused the record and considered the submissions made by both the learned counsel. 6. On 11.09.2007, this Court passed the following order in W.P.M.P.No.21414 of 2007 in W.P.No.16787 of 2007: “Unless the writ petition itself is disposed of, no relief as sought for in the W.P.M.P. can be granted. Hence, the WPMP is dismissed. However, this order will not preclude the petitioner from going before the appropriate Court and getting the clarification as to the decree if there is any mistake in mentioning the name of the petitioner therein.” 7. Despite the specific orders of this Court, it seems that the petitioner had not taken any steps to get clarification as to whether there was any mistake in mentioning the name in the decree. 8. In view of the above, the Writ Petition is disposed of directing the petitioner to approach appropriate Court and get clarification as to whether there was any mistake in mentioning the name of the petitioner in the decree. There shall be no order as to costs. As a sequel, miscellaneous applications, pending if any, shall stand closed. _____________________________ JUSTICE RAVI CHEEMALAPATI Date: 17th October, 2025 RKS