vs-' 1 APHC010025772025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3333] WEDNESDAY,THE TWENTYSECONDDAY OF JANUARY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SMT JUSTICE V.SUJATHA WRIT PETITION NO: 1400/2025 Between: Gudipudi Anjani Kumari, ...PETITIONER AND The State of Andhra Pradesh and another ...RESPONDENT(S) Counsel for the Petitioner: 1.AKKISHORE REDDY Counsel for the Respondent(S): 1.GP MUNCIPAL ADMN AND URBAN DEVAP The Court made the following: 2 ORDER: This Writ Petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India seeking the following relief: to issue a Writ or order or direction more particularly one in the nature of WRIT OF MANDAMUS declaring the action of the Respondents herein particularly Respondent No. 2 In touching upon the Petitioner’s building situated at D. No.6-19-38/2, Arundalpet, Guntur City, Guntur District (Shop No. 24 given by Municipality) and giving markings v/ithout having any right or authority highhandedly and subjecting the petitioner to distress as nothing but illegal, erroneous, highhanded and violative of Article 14, 19(i)(g), 21 and 300-A of the Constitution of India and consequently direct the Respondents much less the Respondent No. 2 not to meddle with the petitioner’s building situated at D.No.6-19-38/2, Arundalpet, Guntur City, Guntur District (Shop No. 24 given by Municipality) without following the procedure contemplated under The Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013 ” Heard learned counsel for the petitioner, learned Government Pleader for Municipal Administration and Urban Development for respondent No.1 and learned Standing Counsel for respondent No.2. The petitioner is the absolute owner and possessor of the house bearing Door No.6-19-38/2, Arundalpet, Guntur City, Guntur District (shop No.24 given by Municipality), where the petitioner is residing and carrying on his own business. While the matter being so, the respondents are intending to give markings to their shop for road widening purpose without following due process of law and without paying fair compensation to her. However, the case of the petitioner is also that the respondents have orally informed that they will give TDR certificate instead of fair compensation. 2. 3. '"V; 3 4. Today, when the matter came up for hearing, Mr.A.S.C.Bose, learned Standing Counsel for respondent No.2, on instructions, informed this Court that they are intending to issue a notice under Section 146 of APMC Act, 1955, to the petitioner and follow the procedure as contemplated under Sections 146 and 147 of the Hyderabad Municipal Corporation Act, 1955 much less the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition and Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013. In view of the same, instead of keeping the writ petition pending, the writ petition is disposed of directing the 2^^ respondent not to interfere with the possession of the petitioner without following the procedure as contemplated under the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition and Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013. 5. 6. With the above direction, the Writ Petition is disposed of. No costs. Miscellaneous petitions pending, if any, in this Writ Petition shall stand closed. JUSTICE V.SUJATHA Date: 22.01.2025 KGR IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) FRIDAY, THE SEVENTH DAY OF FEBRUARY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE SUBBA REDDY SATTI WRIT PETITION NO: 2441 OF 2025 Between: S. Vijaya Kumar, S/o. Late S. Pydi Raju, Age. 63 years. Assistant Manager (OPS) (Retd.), R/o D.No.37-12-47/1, Plot No.169, NGGOs Colony, Kaparada Layout, Visakhapatnam. ...PETITIONER AND 1. The State of Andhra Pradesh, Rep. by Principal Secretary, Revenue (Excise) Department, Secretariat Building, Velagapudi, Amaravati, Guntur District. 2. The Commissioner and Director of Prohibition and Excise, Government of Andhra Pradesh, APIIC Towers, Mangalagiri, Guntur District. 3. The Commissioner of Inquiries, A.P. Secretariat Buildings, Amaravathi Velagapudi, Guntur District. ...RESPONDENTS 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 3 respondent in issuing notices to the petitioner vide Notice No.128/COI- JS/2023, Dt.21.03.2024 to attend the enquiry which was deemed to have been quashed and also not releasing the retirement benefits pension, commuted value of pension, gratuity, insurance, earned leave encashment is illegal, arbitrary and violative of Articles 14, 16, 21 and 300A of the Constitution of India and consequently direct the respondents to release the retirement benefits pension, commuted value of pension, gratuity, rd t-. insurance, earned leave encashment along with interest 12% per annum from the date of retirement till the date of payment. lA NO: 1 OF 2025 Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the writ petition, the High Court may be pleased to direct the respondents 1 and 2 to pay the retirement benefits viz., pension, commuted value of pension, gratuity insurance, earned leave encashment forthwith, pending disposal of the writ petition. Counsel for the Petitioner: SRI K.R. KAMALAKAR FOR SRI MANOJ KUMAR BETHAPUDI Counsel for the Respondents: SRI S. RAJU, ASST.GP FOR SERVICES I The Court made the following: ORDER ■ w s APHC010039202025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3331] FRIDAY ,THE SEVENTH DAY OF FEBRUARY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE SUBBA REDDY SATTI WRIT PETITION NO: 2441/2025 Between: S Vijaya Kumar ...PETITIONER AND ...RESPONDENT(S) The State Of Andhra Pradesh and Others Counsel for the Petitioner: 1.MANOJ KUMAR BETHAPUDI Counsel for the Respondent(S): 1.GP FOR SERVICES I The Court made the following ORDER: Heard Sri K.R.Kamalakar, learned counsel representing Sri Manoj Kumar Bethapudi, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri S.Raju, learned Assistant Government Pleader for Services-I for respondents. Challenging Notice No.128/COI-JS/2023, dated 21.03.2024 issued by the Member-Commissionerate of Inquiries directing the petitioner to attend the inquiry despite the order dated 28.04.2023 passed in W.P.No.17912 of 2021 and not releasing the retirement benefits, the above writ petition is filed. 2. The petitioner, Assistant Manager (OPS) retired from service on attaining the age of superannuation on 31.07.2024. During December 2011 3. 2 and January 2012 ACB officials conducted raids on all the liquor shops and their offices in the combined State of Andhra Pradesh. FIRs were registered against liquor shop owners and proceedings were also initiated against several officers of the Prohibition & Excise Department. Against some officers, criminal cases were launched and against some officers including the petitioner, the matters were referred to the Tribunal for disciplinary proceedings. Against the petitioner, Tribunal Enquiry Case (TEC) 190 of 2013 was registered. Since the inquiry is not completed, the petitioner filed W.P.No.17912 of 2021. A coordinate bench of this Court disposed of the said writ petition by order dated 28.04.2023. The operative portion of the said order reads as under: "Considering the aforesaid including the admitted facts related to delay in concluding the disciplinary proceedings against the petitioner and the settled legal preposition related to quashing of disciplinary proceedings / charge-sheet, this court is not inclined to interfere at this stage. However, considering the facts of the case, the disciplinary authority is directed to complete the disciplinary proceedings, as expeditiously as possible, preferably within a period of three months from the date of receipt of copy of this order or else it is needless to say that the charge framed against the petitioner/ employee stands quashed automatically without reference to any further order of this Hon’ble Court.” 4. The petitioner made representation dated 03.07.2024 (Ex.P.4) to the 1®‘ respondent by annexing the copy of the order dated 28.04.2023. The petitioner also enclosed the copy of the said representation to the 2^^ respondent - Commissioner & Director of Prohibition & Excise. Since the inquiry has not been concluded within three months, time fixed by this Court, TEC No. 190 of 2013 against the petitioner by afflux of time, stands quashed. Despite the quashing of TEC No.190 of 2013, a notice dated 21.03.2024 (Ex.P.1) was issued to the petitioner directing the petitioner to 5. 3 attend the inquiry. It is very unfortunate, that the respondent authorities failed to notice the operative portion of the order dated 28.04.2023 in W.P.No.17912 of 2021. Going by the order, three months, time fixed by the Court would be completed by 28.07.2023. Going by the information sent by the petitioner annexing the copy of Ex.P.'4, the time fixed by the Court expired by 03.10.2024. Thus, at least by 03.10.2024, the Tribunal Enquiry Case against the petitioner stood quashed. Despite the same, issuing Ex.P.1 notice to the petitioner is nothing but arbitrary action on the part of the 3^^ respondent. Since the disciplinary proceedings were quashed, respondents 1 and 2 should have released the retirement benefits to the petitioner. At the hearing, learned counsel for the petitioner placed reliance upon the judgment of the Division Bench in W.A.No.383 of 2022. The Division Bench in an identical matter observed as under: “Writ appeal is partly allowed modifying the order impugned, dated 29.01.2021 passed in W.P.Np,.0,70 of 2021 while reducing the rate of interest from 12% to 9% on the retirement benefits of respondent No.1/ petitioner from the date they become due till the date of realization." This Court perused the judgment of the Division Bench. The said writ appeal was filed by the State against the order dated 29.01.2021 whereby the learned Single Judge directed to fix the pension payable to the petitioner therein and other benefits together with interest at 12%. After considering all the aspects, the Division Bench allowed the writ petition and directed the authorities to pay service benefits with interest @ 9%. The judgment of the Division Bench binds this Court. As discussed supra, once the charges against the petitioner quashed by the operation of the order, the authorities are bound to pay/release the retirement benefits of the petitioner. The failure on the part of the authorities to pay the retirement benefits, without any reason, is not only 6. 7. 8. were 4 illegal but also arbitrary. Since the retirement benefits are not paid, the respondents are liable to pay the same with interest. Given the discussion supra, the Writ Petition is allowed. The Notice No.128/COI-JS/2023, dated 21.03.2024 (Ex.P.1) is hereby quashed. Respondents 1 and 2 shall pay thb-retirement benefits to the petitioner except the amounts released so far with interest at 9% from the date they become due till the date of realization. No order as to costs. As a sequel, pending miscellaneous petitions, if any, shall stand closed. Sd/- K. TATA RAO DEPUTY REGISTRAR 9. //TRUE COPY// SECTION OFFICER 1. The Principal Secretary, Revenue (Excise) Department, State of Andhra Pradesh, Secretariat Building, Velagapudi, Amaravati, Guntur District. 2. The Commissioner and Director of Prohibition and Excise, Government of Andhra Pradesh, APIIC Towers, Mangalagiri, Guntur District. 3. The Commissioner of Inquiries, A.P. Secretariat Buildings, Amaravathi Velagapudi, Guntur District. 4. One CC to Sri Manoj Kumar Bethapudi, Advocate [OPUC] 5. Two CCs to GP for Services I, High Court of Andhra Pradesh. [OUT] 6. Three C.D. Copies. To, Cnr HIGH COURT DATED:07/02/2025 ORDER S' f* 2 1 FEB 2025 WP.No.2441 of 2025 S Current Section ^uLSespATCyt^S^^ ALLOWING THE W.P. WITHOUT COSTS