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

2026 Supreme(Online)(AP) 11389

HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH
NINALA JAYASURYA
K. BHASKARAIAH NELLORE DIST. – Appellant
Versus
C.G.M. AP SPDCL TIRUPATI & 2 ORS. – Respondent
WP 17729/2014



APHC010107122014 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH [3209]

AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction)

WEDNESDAY,THE TWENTY FIFTH DAY OF FEBRUARY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY SIX PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE NINALA JAYASURYA WRIT PETITION NO: 17729/2014 Between:

1. K . BHASKARAIAH, NELLORE DIST., S/O K.RAMANAIAH, AGED ABOUT 48 YEARS, ELECTRICAL CONTRACTOR, R/O T.N.KANDRIGA VILLAGE, D.V.SATRAM MANDAL, SPSR NELLORE DISTRICT.

...PETITIONER AND

1. C G M AP SPDCL TIRUPATI 2 ORS, TIRUPATHI, REP BY CHIEF GENERAL MANAGER OPERATION APSPDCL, TIRUPATHI, CHITTOOR DISTRICT.

2. S UPERINTENDING ENGINEER OPERATION, NELLORE, SPSR NELLORE DISTRICT.

3. D IVISIONAL ELECTRICAL ENGINEER OPERATION DIVISION SPDCL, NAIDUPET, SPSR NELLORE DISTRICT.

...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 a Writ, order or direction more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus, declaring the action of the respondents 2 and 3 in not approving the candidates recruited by the petitioner as shift operators and watchmen of B.V.Palem-SS, Akkampet-SS, Mannarpoluru-SS and Mannemutheri-SS as illegal and arbitrary and consequently direct the 3rd respondent to approve the candidates recruited as Shift operators and watchmen by the petitioner and allow the recruited candidates to work as shift operators and watchmen of B.V.Palem-SS, Akkampet-SS, Mannarpoluru-SS and Mannemutheri-SS and pay the wages and other benefits from the date of recruitment as Shift operators and watchmen IA NO: 1 OF 2014(WPMP 22204 OF 2014 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 3rd respondent to approve the candidates namely Kasi Krishna Moorthy as shift operator for Mannemutheri-SS, KasiGopala Krishna as shift operator for Mannarpoluru-SS, Akkarapaka Manikanta, Karvety Nataraja as shift operators and Shaik Sabeer Basha as watchman for B.V.Palem -SS, Meenakshi Rambabu as Watchman for Akkampet-SS recruited by the petitioner and allow them to work at Sub-stations pending disposal of the above Writ Petition IA NO: 4 OF 2014(WPMP 121568 OF 2014 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 Counsel for the Petitioner:

1. P GANGA RAMI REDDY Counsel for the Respondent(S):

1. VENKATA RAMA RAO KOTA SC FOR APSPDCL

2. P VINOD KUMAR The Court made the following:

ORDER:-

Heard Mr.K.Divakar Reddy, learned counsel representing the matter on behalf of the writ petitioner and also Mr.Ashok, learned counsel representing Mr.Kota Venkata Rama Rao, learned Standing Counsel for APSPDCL.

2. The writ petition is filed seeking to declare the action of respondent Nos.2 & 3 in not approving the candidates recruited by the petitioner/contractor as shift operators in the subject matter sub-stations as illegal and arbitrary, and for consequential directions to approve the candidates recruited as shift operators and to allow the recruited candidates to work as shift operators, etc., 3. A learned Judge of the Combined High Court for the State of Telangana and for the State of Andhra Pradesh, vide interim order dated 30.06.2014 in W.P.M.P.No.22204 of 2014, directed the 3rd respondent to approve the candidates recruited by the petitioner for maintenance of sub-stations as per the terms and conditions. Counter affidavit was filed, but not vacate stay petition was filed.

4. In view of the above stated position and the direction, which was granted as long back as in the year 2014, this Court is not inclined to examine the matter in detail.

5. Accordingly, the writ petition is closed. However, it is needless to observe that the petitioner is at liberty to seek recourse to the Law, in the event any cause of action survives.

There shall be no order as to costs.

As a sequel, m

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 Back to top