Research › Search › Judgment

High Court of Andhra Pradesh · body

2025 DAILYLAW 51962 (AP)

THE DEPOT MANAGER, APSRTC, DHONE DEPOT. v. P.M.VIJAYAKUMAR, ANANTHAPUR & ANOTHER

WP/13726/2007 · 2025-09-24

Ravi Cheemalapati

body2025

Judgment text

Extracted from the PDF above. The PDF is authoritative.

APHC010291642007 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3332] THURSDAY, THE TWENTY FIFTH DAY OF SEPTEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE RAVI CHEEMALAPATI WRIT PETITION NO: 13726/2007 Between: 1. THE DEPOT MANAGER, APSRTC, DHONE DEPOT., EDUCATION DEPARTMENT, SECRETARIAT BUILDINGS, HYDERABAD. ...PETITIONER AND 1. P M VIJAYAKUMAR ANANTHAPUR ANOTHER, S/O.P.M.PRAKASAM EX.COACH BUILDER C/O.8/386, COURT ROAD, ANANTHAPUR 2. THE PRESIDING OFFICER INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL CUM, LABOUR COURT, ANANTHAPUR ...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 call for the records relating to ID.No.62/2003 on the file of the Industrial Tribunal cum Labour court, Ananthapur and quash the award dated 3.11.2006 by issuing appropriate writ order or direction more particularly one in the nature of writ of certiorari and to pass IA NO: 1 OF 2007(WPMP 17230 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 operation of the award in ID.No.62/2003 dated 3.11.2006 on the file of the industrial Tribunal cum Labour court, Ananthapur pending disposal of the above writ petition and to pass 2 Counsel for the Petitioner: 1. P VINAYAKA SWAMY Counsel for the Respondent(S): 1. GP FOR LABOUR 2. M V PRATAP REDDY 3 The Court made the following order: Though the matter is listed today under the caption ‘For Dismissal’, there is no representation on behalf of the petitioner. On earlier occasions also i.e., on 12.09.2025 and 01.09.2025, there was no representation on behalf of the petitioner. It shows that the petitioner is not interested in prosecuting its case. Hence, the Writ Petition is dismissed for non-prosecution. There shall be no order as to costs. As a sequel, all the pending miscellaneous applications are closed. ___________________________ JUSTICE RAVI CHEEMALAPATI Date: 25.09.2025 MP 4 133 THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE RAVI CHEEMALAPATI WRIT PETITION NO:13726 of 2007 Date: 25.09.2025 MP