← Library
High Court for State of TelanganaWP/31732/2011allowed no costs

M/S. Adarsh Welfare Society, v. The Andhra Pradesh State Road Transport Corporation,

2015-09-09C.V.Nagarjuna Reddy3 pages

The Hon'ble Sri Justice C.V.Nagarjuna Reddy Writ Petition Nos.31701, 31716 & 31732 of 2011 Dated 09.09.2015 WP.No.31701/11 Between:

T.Venkateswarlu ... Petitioner and The Andhra Pradesh State Road Transport Corporation Hyderabad, rep. by its Vice Chairman & Managing Director

...Respondents

Counsel for the petitioner: Mr.SV.Ramana Counsel for the respondents: Mr.A.Ravi Babu, SC for TSRTC WP.No.31716/11 Between:

M/s.Priyanka Mahila MandaliNalgonda District, Rep. by its President T.Ashok Kumari ... Petitioner and The Andhra Pradesh State Road Transport Corporation

Hyderabad, rep. by its Vice Chairman & Managing Director & 2 others

...Respondents

Counsel for the petitioner: Mr.SV.Ramana Counsel for the respondents: Mr.A.Ravi Babu, SC for TSRTC WP.No.31732/11 Between:

M/s.Adarsh Welfare Society Nalgonda District, Rep. by its President T.Venkateswarlu ... Petitioner and The Andhra Pradesh State Road Transport Corporation Hyderabad, rep. by its Vice Chairman & Managing Director & 2 others

...Respondents

Counsel for the petitioner: Mr.SV.Ramana Counsel for the respondents: Mr.A.Ravi Babu, SC for TSRTC The Court made the following:

Common Order :

These three Writ Petitions have been filed for a Mandamus to set aside the proceeding bearing No.02/122(92)/2011-RM:N, dated 16.11.2011, of respondent No.2, informing all the Regional Managers of the erstwhile APSRTC to blacklist the petitioners.

Mr.A.Ravi Babu, learned Standing Counsel for the Telangana State Road Transport Corporation, representing the respondents, has fairly submitted that this Court by Common Order, dated 13-08-2015, in WP.Nos.23564 and 23593 of 2012, has considered the order of respondent No.2 blacklisting the petitioner therein (petitioner in WP.Nos.31701 & 31732 of 2011) and set aside the same.

As the very order of respondent No.2, which constituted the basis for him to issue the impugned proceeding was set aside, the impugned proceeding is also liable to be set aside. Accordingly, all the three Writ Petitions are allowed. As a sequel, the miscellaneous petitions, pending if any, stand disposed of as infructuous.

______________________ (C.V.Nagarjuna Reddy, J) Dt: 9th September, 2015 LUR