JUDGMENT :

A.V. Sesha Sai, J.

1. Heard Sri Srinivas Rao Bodduluri, learned counsel for the appellant, Sri S.V. Muni Reddy, learned counsel for the writ petitioners-respondent Nos.1 to 3 and Sri N. Aswarthanarayana, learned Government Pleader for Agriculture for respondent Nos.4 to 8, apart from perusing the material available on record.

2. Respondent No.6 in W.P.No.34931 of 2016 is the appellant in the present Appeal, preferred under Clause 15 of the Letters Patent. Respondent Nos.1 to 3 herein filed the aforesaid Writ Petition, assailing the proceedings of the Chief Executive Officer, Rythu Bazaars, Government of Andhra Pradesh, Guntur-8th respondent herein, dated 26.09.2016. By way of the aforesaid proceedings, the Chief Executive Oficer-8th respondent herein, engaged the appellant herein as Estate Officer, subject to certain conditions stipulated therein. The present Writ Petition No.34931 of 2016 came to be instituted on 26.10.2016. The learned Single Judge of the composite High Court of Andhra Pradesh, while ordering notices, suspended the operation of the proceedings dated 26.09.2016 till further orders. After receipt of the notices, the respondents in the Writ Petition, contested the Writ Petition by filing counter affidavits. Eventually, the learned Single Judge, by way of an order dated 21.10.2022, allowed the Writ Petition, quashing the proceedings of the Chief Executive Officer dated 26.09.2016. Challenging the validity and legal sustainability of the aforesaid order, the 6th respondent in the Writ Petition has come up before this Court by way of this Letters Patent Appeal.

3. Sri Srinivas Rao Bodduluri, learned counsel for the writ appellant contends that the order of the learned Single Judge is highly erroneous and contrary to law and also not in consonance with the material available on record. In elaboration, it is contended by the learned counsel that the learned Single Judge ought to have seen that the writ petitioners have no locus standi to maintain the Writ Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. It is the further submission of the learned counsel that since the allegations and averments in the Writ Affidavit are in the nature of public interest, the learned single Judge ought to have relegated to the writ petitioners for such remedy. It is further submitted by the learned counsel that the learned Single Judge grossly erred in treating the Writ Petition as one in the nature of quo warranto in the absence of any statutory violation, which is a condition precedent while exercising the jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for issuance of writ in the nature of writ of quo warranto. It is also the submission of the learned counsel that the learned Single Judge did not take into consideration the averments made in the counter affidavit filed by the 6th respondent-writ appellant herein.

4. On the contrary Sri S.V. Muni Reddy, learned counsel for the writ petitioners-respondent Nos.1 to 3 herein contends that in view of the misbehaviour exhibited by the writ appellant during his term of office in the category of Estate Officer and on the recommendation of the Joint Collector, the services of the appellant herein were terminated by the Chief Executive Officer-8th respondent herein vide order dated 01.09.2016. It is further contended by the learned counsel that questioning the said order of termination, the appellant herein earlier filed W.P.No.30572 of 2016 and the same was withdrawn by the writ appellant at a later point of time and the order of termination attained finality.

5. In the above background, the issues that emerge for consideration of this Court in the present Writ Appeal are:

1. Whether the order of the learned Single Judge, which is impugned in the present Writ Appeal, is sustainable and tenable?

2. Whether the writ appellant is entitled for any relief from this Court under Clause 15 of the Letters Patent?

6. The information available before this Court manifestly disc