IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) MONDAY, THE TWENTY SEVENTH DAY OF JANUARY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE HARINATH.N WRIT PETITION NO: 23519 OF Between: 1. P.V.V. Mohan, S/o. Narsimhappadu, Aged about 457620), 2. P.N. Murthy, S/o. Chellayyanaidu, Aged about 456200), (The above petitioner No.1 & 2 Bus Depot, Visakhapatnam District, A.P.) 45 years. Conductor (E- 46 years, Conductor (E- are working at APSRTC, Maddilapalem ...PETITIONER(S) AND The Depot Manager, APSRTC, Maddilapalem District, A.P. Bus Depot, Visakhapatnam ...RESPONDENT Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed therewith, the High Court be pieased to issue a writ or order or direction may more particularly one in the action of the respondent in of excess leaves by the unjust and against to the principles of natural justice and also contrary to the procedures, by setting aside the Office Order No,P1/430(01)/2012-MDPM, dated 06-03-2012 of respondent herein and consequently direct the respondents not to recover any amounts from the nature of writ of mandamus declaring that the ordering the recovery stating that availment petitioners is bad, arbitrary, illegal petitioners salaries and any amount recovered, the same may be repaid to the petitioners in concerned with the above order. I.A. NO: 1 OF 2012tWPMP. NO: 30055 nF Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the writ petition, the High Court be pleased direct the respondents to stay the may recovery of the amounts from salaries of the petitioners by suspending the office order No.P1/430(01)/2012- MDPM, dt.06-03-2012 of respondent herein. Counsel for the Petitioner(s):SRI P VENKATESWAR Counsel for the Respondent: M/s K SARALA REDDY(SC APSRTC,PNV) RAO FOR The Court made the following: ORDER APHC010262342012 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3457] MONDAY. THE TWENTY SEVENTH DAY OF JANUARY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE HARINATH.N WRIT PETITION NO: 23519/2012 Between: P.v.v. Mohan, and Others ...PETITIONER(S) AND ...RESPONDENT The Depot Manager Apsrtc Counsel for the Petitioner(S): 1. P VEN KATESWAR RAO Counsel for the Respondent: 1.K. SARALA REDDY(SC FOR APSRTC,PNV) The Court made the following Order: The petitioners are challenging the proceedings of recovery dated 06.03.20,12. The respondents have passed the said proceedings, whereby the respondent proposed to recover the excess salary drawn by the employees on account of the payments received from the respondent, despite availing excess leaves beyond their eligibility. 2. This Court, vide proceedings dated 01.08.2012, granted a 3. stay of recovery. 2 As seen from the impugned proceedings, the respondent 4. proposed to recover the alleged excess salary drawn by the petitioners in twenty installments. The learned Standing counsel for the respondent submits 5. that during the audit conducted by the respondent, seventeen employees of the Maddilapalem Depot were found to have availed leaves beyond their entitlements. On account of the same, it was proposed to recover the excess salary paid to the said employees, including the petitioner. The 1®' petitioner is alleged to have taken 1,607 days of leave up to 30.12.2011, apart from availing casual leave and encashing 62 days of earned leave up to 1999. In the case of 2^^ petitioner, it is stated in the counter-affidavit that the 2 nd petitioner had taken 800 days of leave up to 30.12.2011, apart from encashing 181 days of earned leave up to year 2005. It is not in dispute that the petitioners were appointed as 6. conductors in the respondent corporation in the year 1989 and the alleged audit was conducted in 2011, with proceedings issued in 2012. The impugned proceedings were not clearly and explicitly prepared to reflect the excess leaves availed by the petitioners and 3 the alleged excess amounts drawn by the petitioners, impugned proceedings are not backed by any other material to substantiate the claim of the respondent. The In view of the ambiguous orders passed by the respondent in the proceedings dated 06.03.2012, the respondent cannot be permitted to recover any amounts. The writ petition is allowed in terms of the interim orders granted by this Court and the impugned proceedings are set aside. 7. 8. Accordingly, the writ petition is allowed. There shall be no order as to costs. Pending miscellaneous petitions, if any, shall stand closed. SD/-A VIJAYA BABU ASSISTANT REGISTRAR r 5^ SECTION ( //TRUE COPY// OFFICER To, The Depot Manager, APSRTC, Maddilapalem Bus Depot, Visakhapatnam District, A.P. One CC to SRI. P. VENKATESWAR RAO, Advocate [OPUC] One CC to M/s. K. SARALA REDDY(SC FOR APSRTC,PNV) Advocate [OPUC] Three C.D.Copies 1. 2. 3. 4. nm HIGH COURT DATED:27/01/2025 ORDER WP.No.23519of2012 % * 0 5 MAR 2075 S. . Current oecuoii ALLOWING THE WP WITHOUT COSTS IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH :: AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) TUESDAY, THE TWENTY EIGHTH DAY OF JANUARY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT HON’BLE SMT JUSTICE V.SUJATHA WRIT PETITION NO: 2022 OF 2025 Between: Tunuguntia Nagendra Lakshman Kumar, S/o Late Viswanadham, Aged about 71 years, Occ: Advocate, R/o Flat No.401, Radha Krishna Apartments, 2nd Lane, Pattabhipuram, Guntur City, Guntur District ...PETITIONER AND 1. The State of Andhra Pradesh, Represented by its Principal Secretary Municipal Administration and Urban Development Department Secretariat Buildings, Velagapudi, Amaravathi, Guntur District 2. The Guntur Municipal Corporation, Represented by its Commissioner, Guntur Municipal Corporation Office, Guntur, Guntur District ...RESPONDENTS Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India is filed praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed therewith, the High Court may be pleased to issue a Writ or order or direction more particularly in the nature of Writ of Mandamus declaring the action of the Respondents herein particularly Respondent No.2 in touching upon the Petitioners building situated at D.no. 6-19-23, 14th lane, Arundalpet, Guntur City, Guntur District (Shop No. 15 given by Municipality) and giving markings without 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 one meddle with the Petitioners building situated at D.no.6-19-23, 14th lane, Arundalpet, Guntur City, Guntur District (Shop No. 15 given by Municipality) without following the procedure contemplated under The Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013. lA NO: 1 OF 2025 Petition under Section 151 CPC is filed praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased to direct the Respondent no.2 not to meddle with the Petitioner’s peaceful possession and enjoyment of the building situated at D.no.6-19-23, 14th lane, main road, Arundalpet, Guntur City, Guntur District (Shop No. 15 given by Municipality) without following the procedure contemplated under The Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act disposal of the above writ petition. Counsel for the Petitioner: SRI A K KISHORE REDDY Counsel for the Respondent No.1: GP FOR MUNCIPAL ADMN URBAN DEV 2013, pending Counsel for the Respondent No.2: SRI A S C BOSE (SC FOR MUNICIPAL CORPORATIONS) The Court made the following: ORDER 1 APHC010039782025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3333] TUESDAY ,THE TWENTY EIGHTH DAY OF JANUARY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SMT JUSTICE V.SUJATHA WRIT PETITION NO: 2022/2025 Between: Tunuguntia Nagendra Lakshman Kumar ...PETITIONER AND The State Of Andhra Pradesh and Others ...RESPONDENT(S) Counsel for the Petitioner: 1.AKKISHORE REDDY Counsel for the Respondent(S): 1.GP FOR MUNCIPAL ADMN URBAN DEV The Court made the following: 2 ORDER: This Writ Petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India seeking the following relief: “...Ao 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.6-19-23, 14"^ lane, Arundalpet, Guntur City, Guntur District (Shop No. 15 given by Municipality) and giving markings without 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.6-19-23, 14‘^ lane, Arundalpet, Guntur City, Guntur District (Shop No. 15 given by Municipality) without following the procedure contemplated under The Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013..." 2. 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.6-19-23, 14^*^ lane, Arundalpet, Guntur City, Guntur District i (shop No.15 given by Municipality), where the petitioner is residing and 3. 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 him. However, the case of the petitioner is also that the respondents have orally informed that they will give TDR certificate instead of fair cojjjp^hsation. 3 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 4. Sections 146 and 147 of the Hyderabad Municipal Corporation Act, 1955 as well as 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 5. under the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition and Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013. With the above direction, the Writ Petition is disposed of. No costs. 6. Miscellaneous petitions pending, if any, in this Writ Petition shall stand closed. SD/- B CHITTI JOSEPH ASSISTANT REGISTRAR rstcS //TRUE COPY// N OFFICER To 1. The Principal Secretary, Municipal Administration and Urban Development Department, Secretariat Buildings, Velagapudi, Amaravathi, Guntur District 2. The Commissioner, Guntur Municipal Corporation, Guntur Municipal Corporation Office, Guntur, Guntur District 3. One CC to Sri A K Kishore Reddy, Advocate [OPUC] 4. One CC to Sri A S C Bose, SC for Municipal Corporations, Advocate [OPUC] 5. Two CCs to GP for Muncipal Admn Urban Dev, High Court of Andhra Pradesh. [OUT] 6. Three CD Copies TF HtGH COURT ; DATED:28/01/2025 ORDER of , WP.No.2022 of 2025 cs X 0 5 MAR 7m 1*2-^ . Current oecuon Co ■iy DISPOSING OF THE W.P., WITHOUT COSTS