V.N.Praveen Kumar, v. State Of Andhra Pradesh,

HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE A.RAMALINGESWARA RAO W.P.No.8312 OF 2017

ORDER

This writ petition is filed seeking a direction to the 1st respondent to dispose of the revision petition dated 10.8.2005 filed by the petitioner against the order dated 22.7.2005 passed by the 2nd respondent.

It is the case of the petitioner that he was elected as Secretary and Correspondent of SNSBVS Gupta High School by the Managing Committee on 24.07.1999. His appointment was ratified by the 2nd respondent vide proceedings dated 11.12.2001. On the complaint made by one Sarada Devi, the 2nd respondent directed the Regional Joint Director of School Education, Guntur, to enquire into the allegations. Pursuant to the same, the Regional Joint Director directed the 4th respondent to conduct enquiry and submit a report, who, in turn, submitted the same. The Regional Joint Director, vide letter dated 20.10.2004, submitted the enquiry report to the 2nd respondent. Based on the said report, show cause notice dated 2.3.

2005 was issued to the petitioner as to why he should not be declared as unfit to the post of Correspondent of the School, for which, he submitted his explanation. Thereafter, the 2nd respondent passed an order on 22.7.2005 declaring him as unfit to act as the Secretary and Correspondent of the school and appointed the 4th respondent as Special Officer. Challenging the said order, the petitioner preferred a statutory revision before the 1st respondent on 10.8.

suspension of the order dated 22.7.2005. When no orders were passed, the petitioner filed W.P.No.18239 of 2005 and this Court disposed of the same on 18.8.2005 directing the 1st respondent to pass appropriate orders on the stay petition pending disposal of the revision filed by the petitioner within a period of three weeks. When no orders were passed in revision, the present writ petition is filed.

Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that in spite of the said direction, the stay petition is not yet disposed of, and later on, the counsel appearing for the petitioner in the said writ petition expired. He further submits that the petitioner approached the 1st respondent several times for disposal of the revision, but, so far no orders have been passed. Earlier, this Court disposed of W.P.No.18239 of 2005 on 18.8.2005. Though the petitioner in the affidavit filed in support of the writ petition stated that he gave instructions to his counsel Sri M.Prabhakar Rao to file a contempt case for violation of the directions in W.P.No.18239 of 2005, but he did not receive any communication from his counsel. Subsequently, he came to know that the said Prabhakar Rao expired long back.

It is the duty of the petitioner to pursue his case diligently and no details were given in the affidavit filed in support of the writ petition with regard to the date of entrustment of the contempt case and the enquiry made with regard to the result of such contempt case.

12 years. In the meanwhile the State is also bifurcated. No tenable reason is shown for approaching this Court at this belated stage. In the circumstances, this Court is not inclined to entertain the writ petition on the ground of laches.

Accordingly, the Writ Petition is dismissed. No costs. Miscellaneous petitions, if any, pending, shall stand closed. ___________________________________ JUSTICE A.RAMALINGESWARA RAO 9th March, 2017 rkk