Research › Search › Judgment

High Court of Andhra Pradesh · body

2026 DAILYLAW 21235 (AP)

M JYOSTNA SRI, GUNTUR DIST v. APSRTC., HYD & 4 OTHERS

WP/30828/2017 · 2026-02-11

Maheswara Rao Kuncheam

body2026

Judgment text

Extracted from the PDF above. The PDF is authoritative.

1 APHC010273562017 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) THURSDAY, THE TWELFTH DAY OF FEBRUARY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY SIX PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE MAHESWARA RAO KUNCHEAM WRIT PETITION NO: 30828 OF 2017 Between: 1. M Jyostna Sri, W/o.Prabhakara Rao, aged 46 years, Housewife, Sangam Jagarlamudi (V), Tenali (M), Guntur District. ...Petitioner AND 1. Andhra Pradesh State Road Transport Corporation, Rep. by its Chairman & Managing Director, Hyderabad. 2. The Regional Manager, APSRTC Guntur Region, Guntur. 3. The Depot Manager, APSRTC Guntur2 Depot, Guntur. 4. The Zonal Manager APSRTC Vijayawada, Vijayawada. 5. Suryadevara Lokeswara Rao, S/o.Giri Maheswara Rao, 47 years, Junior Assistant (Materials), E.No:725903, Zonal Stores Office, APSRTC Zonal Office, Vidhyadharapuram, Vijayawada. ...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 order / direction or any appropriate writ more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus declaring the action of respondents 1 to 4 herein in not taking action against the 5th respondent 2 for suppressing his judicial remand to Sub-Jail, Tenali from 28-11-2015 to 02-12-2015 in connection with Crime No:144/2015 of Tenali Taluq Police Station and for submitting false sick certificate for the above period, inspite of petitioner's representations Dt:02-05-2016 as illegal, unjust, in violation of Regulation 26 of The APSRTC Employees (Conduct) Regulations, 1963 and consequently direct the respondents 1 to 4 herein to take necessary action against the 5th respondent for violation of the above Conduct Regulations by him and to pass IA NO: 1 OF 2017(WPMP 38437 OF 2017 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 1 to 4 herein to take necessary action against the 5th respondent for suppressing his judicial remand to Sub-Jail, Tenali from 28-11-2015 to 02-12-2015 in connection with Crime No:144/2015 of Tenali Taluq Police Station and for furnishing false sick certificate for the above period in the interest of justice. Counsel for the Petitioner: JITHENDER RAO VEERAMALLA Counsel for the Respondents: A G SATYANARAYANA RAO Counsel for the Respondents:P DURGA PRASAD SC FOR APSRTC Counsel for the Respondents:ARAVALA RAMA RAO(SC FOR APSRTC KKAC) The Court made the following order: 3 HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE MAHESWARA RAO KUNCHEAM WRIT PETITION No.30828 OF 2017 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 an order / direction or any appropriate writ more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus declaring the action of respondents 1 to 4 herein in not taking action against the 5th respondent for suppressing his judicial remand to Sub-Jail, Tenali from 28.11.2015 to 02.12.2015 in connection with Crime No:144/2015 of Tenali Taluq Police Station and for submitting false sick certificate for the above period, inspite of petitioner's representations Dt:02-05-2016 as illegal, unjust, in violation of Regulation 26 of The APSRTC Employees (Conduct) Regulations, 1963 and consequently direct the respondents 1 to 4 herein to take necessary action against the 5th respondent for violation of the above Conduct Regulations by him and to pass …..” 2. When the matter is taken up for hearing, Smt.Ramani, learned counsel representing Sri Jithender Rao Veeramalla, learned counsel for the petitioner, submits that in view of subsequent events taken place in the lis, the cause in the writ petition does not survive for further adjudication and the writ petition becomes infructuous. 4 3. Smt.M.Maheswari, learned counsel appearing for un-official 5th respondent is present. 4. Recording the submission made by the learned counsel for the petitioner, the writ petition is dismissed as infructuous. There shall be no order as to costs. Miscellaneous petitions pending if any, shall stand closed. ______________________________ MAHESWARA RAO KUNCHEAM, J Date:12.02.2026 Rns 5 THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE MAHESWARA RAO KUNCHEAM WRIT PETITION No.30828 of 2017 Date:12.02.2026 Rns