CourtKutchehry.com
High CourtsDivision Bench(2001) 03 AP CK 0028

V. Venkatamma vs Municipal Commissioner, Narasaraopet Municipality, Narasaraopet, Guntur and others

Andhra Pradesh High Court · Decided on 16 March 2001 · Citation: (2001) 3 ALD 667 : (2001) 90 FLR 427

HON’BLE JUDGES
S.B. Sinha, C.J · S.R. Nayak, J
CASE NUMBER
Writ Petition No. 27777 of 1998 and WP MP No. 33786 of 1998

CourtKutchehry membership

More clarity. Every judgment.

Download court copies, explore connected cases and make more of every research session.

Loading membership options…

Ask AI about this case

AI Structured Summary

Not yet generated for this judgment

Judgment

10 paragraphs · 337 words

S.B. Sinha, CJ

1.

At the request of the learned Counsel for the parties, the writ petition itself is taken up for hearing.

2.

This writ petition is directed against an order dated 27-4-1998 passed by the A.P. Administrative Tribunal, Hyderabad in OA No.2744 of 1998 whereby and whereunder the writ petitioner''s application has been disposed of by the learned Tribunal with a direction to the respondents to examine the representation of the applicant dated 20-10-1997 and pass appropriate orders within three months from the date of receipt thereof.

3.

Till date, the respondents have not passed any order. The petitioner, before the learned Tribunal, has questioned the action of the respondents in terminating the services of the applicant in July, 1992 and subsequent justification of their action through proceedings ROC.No.1321/95 C1, dated 15-3-1997.

4.

Having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case, in our opinion, it is desirable that the learned Tribunal should consider the matter on merit. In this connection, it is relevant to note the judgment of the Apex Court in K.I. Shephard and Others Vs. Union of India (UOI) and Others, , wherein the Apex Court observed thus:

"16.....It is common experience that once a decision has been taken, there is a tendency to uphold it and a representation may not really yield any fruitful purpose."

and thus, having regard thereto, it may be idle to refer the matter back to the learned Tribunal for consideration of the matter afresh.

5.

For the reasons aforementioned, the impugned order is set aside. The writ petition is allowed and the matter is remitted back to the A.P. Administrative Tribunal, Hyderabad for consideration of the matter afresh. No order as to costs.

6.

Since the main writ petition itself is allowed, it is not necessary to pass any orders in the interlocutory application. It is accordingly disposed of.

7.

We may place on record that the learned Counsel for the respondents submits that a counter-affidavit shall be filed within two (2) weeks from date.