Research › Search › Judgment

High Court of Andhra Pradesh · body

2025 DAILYLAW 46297 (AP)

N. GANI SAHEB, KURNOOL DIST. & 4 OTHERS v. THE CENTRAL POWER DISTRIBUTION COMPANY LTD., & 2 OTHERS

WP/21418/2007 · 2025-09-25

Ravi Cheemalapati

body2025

Judgment text

Extracted from the PDF above. The PDF is authoritative.

APHC010520512007 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3332] FRIDAY,THE TWENTY SIXTH DAY OF SEPTEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE RAVI CHEEMALAPATI WRIT PETITION NO: 21418/2007 Between: 1. N. GANI SAHEB, KURNOOL DIST. & 4 OTHERS, S/O.N. GHOKAR SAHEB CONTRACT LABOUTR IN 33/11 KVS UNDER THE CONTROL OF DIVISONAL ENGINEER, ADONI,KURNOOL DISTRICT. 2. S. MABU BASHA, S/O.KHAJA HUSSAIN CONTRACT LABOUTR/SHIFT OPERATOR, 33/11 KVS ADONI,KURNOOL DISTRICT. 3. A.S. MAHABUB BASHA, S/O. A.S. RAWOOF SHIFT OPERATOR, 132 KVS, KURNOOL. 4. MD. ISHAK BASHA, S/O.MD. ISMAIL CONTRACT LABOUR , POLE TO POLE, B.ROAD, KURNOOL. 5. B. VENAKTESWARA REDDYS/O.NARAYANA REDDY, CONTRACT LABOUR, NANDYAL, ...PETITIONER(S) AND 1. THE CENTRAL POWER DISTRIBUTION COMPANY LTD 2 OTHERS, OF A.P., REP. BY ITS GENERAL MANAGER (COMMERCIAL) RED HILLS, HYDERABAD. 2. THE SUPERINTENDING ENGINEER OPERATION, A.P. CENTRAL POWER DISTRIBUTION COMPANY LIMITED, KURNOOL. 3. THE CHAIRMAN MANAGING DIRECTOR, CENTRAL POWER DISTRIBUTION COMPANY OF A.P. LIMITED, RED HILLS, HYDERABAD. ...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 issue a writ order or direction more in the nature of Mandamus declaring the action of the respondents in nmot considering the claims of the petitioners for selection and appointment to the post of Contract Lineman and seeking to appoint the persons who are younger age contrary to guidelines issued in Circular Memo NO. CGM (Commercial) /CGM (Per)/AS(Per)/PO- A/449-A1/2006 dt.30-6-2007 and also Notification dt.14-11-2006 in Kurnool District is as illegal, arbitrary unjust violative of Articles 14, 16 and 21 of the Constitution besides being opposed to all canons of equity, justice and fair play and hold that the petitioners are entitled for selection and appointment to the post of Contract Junior Lineman in Kurnool DIstrict pursuant to the interviews held on 4 & 5-6-2007 by strictly adhering the age factor on the basis of the guidelines issued in the above Memo dt. 30-6-2007 with all consequential benefits and pass such other and further orders as this Hon'ble Court may deem fit. IA NO: 1 OF 2007(WPMP 27778 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 direct the respondents to consider the case of the petitioners for selection and appointment to the post of Contract Junior Lineman pursuant to the interview to the said post of Contract Junior Lineman held on 4 & 5-6-2007 in the existing vacancies before any persons younger than the petitioners are appointed and pass such other and further orders IA NO: 1 OF 2008(WVMP 493 OF 2008 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 9-10-2007 in WPMP No. 27778/07 in WP 21418 of 2007 in the interest of Justice and to pass Counsel for the Petitioner(S): 1. D LINGA RAO Counsel for the Respondent(S): 1. Venkata Rama Rao Kota SC FOR APSPDCL 2. . The Court made the following: THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE RAVI CHEEMALAPATI WRIT PETITION NO: 21418/2007 ORDER: Sri Chandra Sekhar, learned counsel representing Sri D.Linga Rao, learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that the petitioners are not in contact with him for a long time and he has no instructions in the matter. 2. when the writ petitions are pending before the Court, the parties should invariably be in contact with their advocate, however, in the present case, the petitioners had not been pursuing the case through their advocate, it shows that the petitioners have no interest in pursuing the matter. Hence, the Writ Petition is liable to be dismissed. 3. Accordingly, the Writ Petition is dismissed for non-prosecution. However, if the petitioners feel that the cause still survives, they can file appropriate application within a period of two (02) months. There shall be no order as to costs. As a sequel, miscellaneous applications, pending if any, shall stand closed. _____________________________ JUSTICE RAVI CHEEMALAPATI Date: 26th September, 2025 RKS