SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2025 Supreme(Online)(AP) 1088

HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH
SUBBA REDDY SATTI, J
Shaik Chand Bhai Gari Hussen Peer – Appellant
Versus
The State of Andhra Pradesh – Respondent


:: ORDER ::

Heard Sri Abhay, learned counsel representing Sri V.R.Reddy Kovvuri, learned counsel for the petitioner, Smt Jyothi Ratna, learned Standing counsel appearing for respondents 2 to 5 and Sri S.Raju, learned Assistant Government Pleader for Services appearing for respondent No.1.

2. The notice in respect of the 6th respondent is dispensed with because of the letter addressed by the 4th respondent-Executive Engineer, Operation Division, Mydukur to the Contractor vide Lr.No.EE/O/MDK/AEE.T./F.no:53/

D.No:656/24-25, dated 11.09.2024.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the petitioner was initially appointed as Shift Operator (Contract) by the then Contractor, APSPDCL in the year 2007. Since then, the petitioner has been discharging his duties.

4. Be that as it may, the Returning Officer addressed a letter to the District Election Officer & District Collector vide Ref.No.Elec/139/2024, dated 03.04.2024 (Ex.P6), that the petitioner (outsourcing) employee in APSPDCL participated in election canvassing. The said act violates MCC rules. The Returning Officer also addressed a letter to the 4th respondent vide Ref.No.Elec/139/2024, dated 03.04.2024 (Ex.P7) and requeste

Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon telegram-icon
whatsapp-icon Back to top