L.MARKANDEYULU v. THE ANDHRA PRADESH ROAD TRANSPORT CORPORATION AND 2 OTHERS
WP/4016/2004 · 2026-01-21
Challa Gunaranjan
body2026
DailyLaw.ai
[ 2026 DAILYLAW 24596 (AP) · dailylaw.ai ]
DailyLaw.ai
[ 2026 DAILYLAW 24596 (AP) · dailylaw.ai ]
Judgment text
Extracted from the PDF above. The PDF is authoritative.
APHC010510852004 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3506] THURSDAY,THE TWENTY SECOND DAY OF JANUARY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY SIX PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE CHALLA GUNARANJAN WRIT PETITION NO: 4016/2004 Between:
1.L.MARKANDEYULU, APSRTC CONDUCTOR, E.NO.451068, PALAKONDA DEPOT, SRIKAKULAM DISTRICT (PRESENTLY REMOVED FROM SERVICES) ...PETITIONER AND 1.THE ANDHRA PRADESH ROAD TRANSPORT CORPORATION AND 2 OTHERS, REPRESENTED BY DEPOT MANAGER, PALAKONDA SRIKAKULAM DISTRICT 2.THE DIVISIONAL MANAGER APSRTC, SRIKAKULAM DISTRICT. 3.THE REGIONAL MANAGER APSRTC SRIKAKULAM DISTRICT, S/O.HANUMANTHA RAO AGRICULTURIST R/O.SELAPADU, CHEBROLE (M), GUNTUR DIST. ...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 toto issue an appropriate writ or order of direction more particularly on the nature of Writ of Mandamus by declaring the orders of the respondents issued in Rc.No. APSRTC NO. 02/95 (25)/00/PKD dATED 24-5-2003,APSRTC No. Steno/19 (292)/034/DVM/SKIM Dated:2-9-2003, RC No.Peshi/19 (110) 2033-rm/sklm dATED: 17-10-2003 wherein the petitioner was imposed with the punishment of removal, as illegal, arbitrary, without application of mind violative of principles of natural justice, without reasonable opportunity, disproportionate punishment, without any evidence, without proper findings of the Enquiry Officer and accordingly set aside the same with consequential direction to reinstate the petitioner in to service with all the consequential benefits like back wages etc.
IA NO: 1 OF 2004(WPMP 5285 OF 2004 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 expedite hearing t of the writ petition by fixing an early date and pass such other order or further orders as are deem fit and proper in the circumstances of the case. Counsel for the Petitioner:
1.K R SRINIVAS Counsel for the Respondent(S):
1.VINOD KUMAR TARLADA (SC FOR APSRTC) 2.Y VIVEKANANDA SWAMY The Court made the following:
THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE CHALLA GUNARANJAN WRIT PETITION No.4016 of 2004
ORDER: On the last occasion i.e., 18.12.2025, learned counsel for the petitioner took time on the ground that he would come up with L.R. Application to bring on record the legal heirs on account of death of the sole petitioner.
2. Today, when the matter is taken up for hearing, there is no representation on behalf of the petitioner and no such application is on record.
3. Accordingly, the Writ Petition is dismissed as abated. There shall be no
order as to costs. As a sequel, miscellaneous petitions, if any pending and the Interim
order granted earlier, if any, shall stand closed. _______________________________ JUSTICE CHALLA GUNARANAJAN Date: 22.01.2026 CVD