1 APHC010059842016 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) FRIDAY, THE TWENTY SEVENTH DAY OF FEBRUARY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY SIX PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE MAHESWARA RAO KUNCHEAM WRIT PETITION NO: 10035 OF 2016 Between: 1. S. Gopala Rao, S/o.S.Subba Rao, Aged 26 years, R/o.D.No.17-76, Damerla Vari Street, (via) Vijayawada, Kondapalli, Krishna District. ...Petitioner AND 1. The State of Andhra Pradesh, Rep. by its Principal Secretary, Irrigation (Projects Wing) Department, Secretariat Buildings, Hyderabad. 2. The Andhra Pradesh Power Generation, Corporation, Rep. by its Chairman & Managing Director, Vidyut Soudha, Hyderabad. 3. The District Collector, Vijayawada, Krishna District. 4. The Chief Engineer, Dr.Narla Tatarao Thermal Power Station (VTPS), Ibrahimpatnam, Vijayawada, Krishna 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 a writ, order or direction more particularly one in the nature of writ of Mandamus declaring the impugned action of the 1st Respondent in issuing impugned G.O.Ms. No. 98, dated 15-04-1986 conferring benefit of employment only to the displaced person, son, daughter and spouse, thereby denying grandson or other members of the 2 family, who are dependants on the land so acquired for the purpose of public projects and consequential action of the Respondents 2 to 4 in denying employment to the petitioner under Land Looser Category only on the ground that petitioner is grandson as highly illegal, arbitrary, violative of Article 14 and 16 of Constitution of India, and to pass such order or orders as this Hon'ble Court deems fit just and proper in the circumstances of this case. IA NO: 1 OF 2016(WPMP 12677 OF 2016 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 petitioner for employment under Land Looser Category in any posts of Security Guard / Fireman any other suitable post, as vacancies are existing under the 4th Respondent without rejecting the claim of the petitioner only on the ground that the petitioner is grandson pending disposal of the above writ petition and pass such other order or orders may deem fit and proper in the circumstances of the case. Counsel for the Petitioner: G V SHIVAJI Counsel for the Respondents: Nagaraju Naguru Standing Counsel For APGENCO Counsel for the Respondents:K.KRISHNABUSHAN CHOWDARY SC For APGENCO Counsel for the Respondents:GP FOR IRRI AND CAD (AP) The Court made the following order: 3 HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE MAHESWARA RAO KUNCHEAM WRIT PETITION No.10035 OF 2016 ORDER: The instant writ petition has been filed by the petitioner under Article 226 of Constitution of India seeking the following main prayer: “to issue a writ, order or direction more particularly one in the nature of writ of Mandamus declaring the impugned action of the 1st Respondent in issuing impugned G.O.Ms. No. 98, dated 15-04-1986 conferring benefit of employment only to the displaced person, son, daughter and spouse, thereby denying grandson or other members of the family, who are dependants on the land so acquired for the purpose of public projects and consequential action of the Respondents 2 to 4 in denying employment to the petitioner under Land Looser Category only on the ground that petitioner is grandson as highly illegal, arbitrary, violative of Articles 14 and 16 of Constitution of India, and to pass …..” 2. Heard Sri K.Bharat Kumar, learned counsel representing Sri G.V.Shivaji, learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Standing Counsel for APGENCO appearing for the respondents. 3. When the matter is called for hearing, learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that though they raised several assertions in the writ petition, as per the instructions of his client, he is confining his 4 prayer to the extent that, the petitioner preferred a representation dated 20.01.2016 (Ex.P5) to consider his case for fireman category under land-losers quota by taking into consideration the G.O.Ms.No.98 dated 15.04.1986, and the said representation is till now not disposed of by the 4th respondent authority and the respondent authorities may be directed to dispose of the same. 4. On the other hand, learned Standing Counsel not disputed the same. However, he stated that the respondent authorities will consider the representation made of the petitioner dated 20.01.2016, by strictly taking into consideration the latest instructions, specifically G.O.Ms.No.98 dated 15.04.1986. 5. In the light of the above submissions made by respective counsels, writ petition is disposed of in the following manner: i) the 4th respondent is hereby directed to pass appropriate orders by taking into consideration all the averments made by the petitioner in his representation dated 20.01.2016, within the parameters of G.O.Ms.No.98 dated 15.04.1986, as early as possible, preferably within a period of three months from the date of receipt of copy of this order; (ii) there shall be no order as to costs. 5 As a sequel, miscellaneous petitions pending if any, shall stand closed. ______________________________ MAHESWARA RAO KUNCHEAM, J Date:27.02.2026 Rns 6 THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE MAHESWARA RAO KUNCHEAM WRIT PETITION No.10035 of 2016 Date:27.02.2026 Rns