Loading judgment…
No AI summary yet for this case.
[ 3303 ] HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) FRIDAY, THE THIRD DAY OF NOVEI/BER TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY THREE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE J. SREENIVAS RAO WRIT PETITION NO: 740 OF 2017 Between: Banoth Lachu Naik, S/o. Hanuma, Aged about 46 years, Occ Mandal lncharge(MlC, under dismissal), Telangana State Housing Corporation Ltd., Nutankal Mandal, Suryapet District, Native R/o.H.No.1-6-1 4111616, Sri Rama Nagar, Near Ramarkrishna School, Suryapet-508213. ...PETITIONER AND 1 The State of Telangana, Rep. by its Special Chief Secretary to Government, Housing Department, Telangana Secretariat, Hyderabad. Telangana State Housing Corporation Ltd., Rep. by its fvlanaging Director, Urdu Galli, Himayathnagar, Hyderabad. Project Director, Telangana State Housing Corporation Ltd., Nalgonda, Nalgonda District. Sri. C. Bhasker Reddy, Enquiry Off icer/Executive Engineer (Habtech, State Project Director) C/o. Telangana State Housing Corporation, Urdu Galli, Himayathnagar, Hyderabad. ...RESPONDENTS Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of lndia praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed therewith, the High Court may be pleased to issue order or direction more particularly one in the Writ of Mandamus, to set aside the proceedings No. 8923/Vig(1)/NLG/2014-ll dated 30-1 1-2016 on the file of the 2nd Respondent by holding the same as unjust, unfair, unreasonable, contrary to the procedure as laid down in Rule 20 of Civil Services ( Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules 1991 apart from violation of principles of natural justice and established principles of evidence and violation of Article 14 of the Constitution of lndia and consequently direct the respondents 2 3 4
to re-instate the Petitioner into benefits. service with all attendant and consequential l.A. NO: 2OF 2017(WPMP. NO: 821 0F 20 171 Petition under Section 15'1 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High court may be pleased to suspend the proceedings No. 8923/Vig(1y NLG/2014-ll dated 30-1 1-2016 on the file of 2nd respondent. Counsel for the Petitioner: SRI M.VENKAT RAM REDDY Counsel forthe Respondent No.1: AGP FOR SERVICES'l CounselfortheRespondentNo.2&3:SRIB.SHIVAKUMAR,SCFORTSHCL The Court made the following: ORDER
THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE J.SREENTVAS RAO WRIT PETITION No.74O of 2017 ORDER: This Writ Petition is hled seeking following reliel to set aside the proceedings No.8923/Vig(1)/ NLG/2014-li dated 30.I i.2016 on the ltle of the 2nd respondent by holding the sarne as unjust, unfair, unreasonable, contrary to the procedure as laid dovvn in Ruie 2O of Civil Services (Classifrcation, Control & Appeal) Rules 1991 apart from violation of pnnciples of natural justice and established principles of evidence and violation of Article 14 of the ConsLitution of India and consequently direct the respondents to reinstate the petitioner into service with all attendant and consequential benefits... " 2. Brief facts of the case 2.1. The petitioner was originally appointed as Non-Technical Work Inspector in the respondent Corporation. Later on, due to tlie rvork load in Indiramma Housirrg Prograrnme, his services were taken as Mandal-in-Charge (MIC) by allotting Assistant Engineer's duties. Wtrile discharging his services as IVIIC at Noothanka-l Mandai, Lhe respondent Corporation received a complairrt on 04.08.2014, wherein it is mentioned that grave irregularities were committed by the housing officials in construction of houses under Indiramma Housing Programme Phase-Ill at Noothankal village and Mandal and also adverse news item was publistied on 02. I 2.2014 , in Eenadu Daily Nervspaper. Basing on the said alJegations, the District Collector, Nalgonda, directed the Execulive Engineer (LI), Suryapet, to corrducl preliminary enquiry. Accordingly, the trxecutive trnginecr (H), \
2 Suryapet, has constituted four teams to conduct phj,sical verification of a1l houses sanctioned under Indirarnma Housing programme Phase-lll at Noothankal. The four teams have conducted house to house verification of 660 houses. The Executive Engineer (H), Suryapet, has submitted preliminary enquiry report stating that as against 660 houses sanctioned in the village, financial irregularities occurred with regard to 250 houses to an amount ofRs. 1,03, 19,1 15/ - 2.2. Basing on the said enquiry report, respondent No.2 placed the petitioner under suspension on O4.O2.2O|S along with other two officials and initiated disciplinary proceedings against them invoking the provisions of Andhra pradesh Civil Services (Classification, co.trol & Appeal) Rules 1991 (hereinafter called, 'ccA Rules' brevity). On 04.05.2015, respondent No.2 issued articles of charges. The petitioner submitted expianation on 06.06.2O15 denying the charges levelled against him. Not satisfying with the same, respondent No.2 appointed enquiry officer through proceedings dated 20.OT.2O75 to conduct domestic enquiry. Enquiry officer after conducting enquiry submitted enquiry report on 26.05.2016 wherein it is stated that the charges levelled against the petitioner were proved. Basing on the enquiry report, the discipiinary authority issued notice on 21.06.2016 directing the petitioner to submit his objections. On 06.OT.2016, the petitioner submitted his objections. The disciplinary authority passed impugned order on 30. 1 1.20 16 dismissing the petitioner from service
3 apart from ordering for recovery of an amount of Rs.39 lakhs. Questioning the above said order, the petitioner filed the present writ petition. 3. Heard Sri M.Venkat Ram Reddy, learned counsel for the petitioner, Sri B.Shiva Kumar, learned standing counsel appearing on behalf of respondent Nos.2 and 3, and learned Assistant Government Pleader for Services-I. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that respondent No.2 initiated disciplinary proceedings and issued articles of charges on 04.O5.2015 solely basing upon the preliminary enquiry report dated O8. 10.2014 and the said enquiry was conducted behind the back of the petitioner. Moreover, the ofhcials, who were appointed as enquiry officers, are beiow the rank of the petitioner and they are not regular employees of the respondent Corporation. Therefore, basing on the said enquiry report, responderit No.2 is not entitled to initiate the disciplinary proceedings in the absence of any other material. He further contended that the charge memo dated 04.05.2O15 is not in accordance with Rule 20 (3) and (4) of the CCA Rules on the ground that Annexure-I of articles of charge memo has not disclosed all the relevant facts in respect of each charge, except mentioned that the petitioner committed irreg,larity and no details to whom the aileged payments or double payments etc., are made and further no details are mentioned about the individual houses against which the advance
4 payments were made and names of the beneficiaries of old houses are also not mentioned. Similarly, in Annexure-Ill of articles of charge, no names of witnesses are cited through whom the charges are proposed to be proved. He also contended that along with articles of charge, respondent No.2 has not furnished the enquiry report dated 08.10.2014. Hence, the entire proceedings are liable to be declared as contrary to law and CCA Rules. 4.1 . He further contended that the petitioner submitted detailed explanation on 06.06.2015 and without considering the same, respondent No.2 appointed enquiry ofhcer on 2O.O7 .2015. He also contended that before the enquiry ofhcer, the respondent Corporation has not produced any evidence nor examined any witness Lo prove the charges ievelled against the petitioner, similarly the enquiry ofhcer also has not given proper opportunity to the petitioner to defend his case including cross-examination of witnesses. On the other hand, the errquiry ofllcer submitted report on 26.05.2076, simply stating that the charges 1evel1ed against the petitioner were proved. 4 .2. He further contended that the disciplinary authority without examining the enquiry report and without applying mind independently issued memo on 21.06.2016 directing the petitioner to submit his explanation and the same is clear violation of the CCA Rules. The petitioner submitted his written explanation on 06.07.2016, wherein he raised several grounds including that the
5 enquiry officer has not given proper opportuniry during enquiry and requested respondent No.2 to drop the proceedings. Respondent No.2, without considering the explanation submitted by the petitioner and '*'ithout giving any reasons, passed the impugned order dismissing the pelitioner from services. The impugned order passed by respondent No.2 is clear violation of principles of natural justice and contrary to law. He further contended that as per the Regulations, the remedy of appeal to the Principal Secretary to the Government is provided, but at the time of passing of the impugned order, the very sarne Managing Director of respondent No.2 Corporation is discharging as Principal Secretary to the Government. In view of the same, filing of the appeal before respondent No.2 is futile exercise. 4.3. In support of his contention, he relied upon the judgments of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in State of Uttar Pradesh and others v. Saroj Kumr Sinhal, Regional Provident Fund Commissioner v. Hooghly Mills company Limited and others2, Nirmala J.Jhala v. State of Gujarat and another3 and S. Zabeda Parveen v. A.P. Slomen's Co-operative Finance Corporation, Hyderabad and anothera. 'zotolzysccttz ' zorz 1z; scc ate ' 1zor3; a scc :or '20rs(6)ALD675
6 5. Per contra, learned standing counsel contended that the pctitioner while discharging his duties as MIC committed grave irregularities. The respondent Corporation constituted a Committee to enquire rnto the same and the said Committee after conducting detailed enquiry submitted preliminary enquiry report on 08.10.2O14 pointing out the irregularities committed by the petitioner and other ofllcials and an amount of Rs. 1,03, 19, 1 15/ - was misappropriated and after going through the preliminary enquiry report and after due verihcation of the records, the respondent Corporation initiated disciplinary proceedings against the petitioner and other employees and issued articles of charges on O4.05.2015 by duly foiiowing the CCA Rules and Regulations of the respondent Corporation and the petitioner was placed under suspension. pursuant to the same, the petitioner submitted explanation on 06.06.2015. As the said explanation submitted by the petitioner was not satisfactory, the respondent Corporation ordered regular enquiry by appointing an enquiry officer. During the course of enquiry, the enquiry offrcer has given all opportunities to the petitioner to defend his case. The enquiry ofhcer after conducting detailed enquiry submitted enquiry report on 26.05.2016, wherein he specifically stated that the charges levelled against the petitioner were proved. The disciplinary authorit5r furnished the enquiry report and directed the petitioner to submit objections, if any. Pursuant to the same, the petitioner submitted his
I' 7 objections on 06.0T.2O16. The disciplinary authority after considering the objections submitted by the petitioner and after due verihcation of the entire records including enquiry report passed the impugned proceedings on 30. 1 1 .2016 dismissing the petitioner from services apart from ordering for recovery of an amount of Rs.39 lakhs. 5.1. Against the orders passed by respondent No.2, the statutory remedy of appeal is provided before respondent No.l as per the Regulations. The petitioner without availing the said remedy before the statutory authority i.e., Board of Directors, straight away approached this Court and hled the writ petition alleging that the Managing Director of respondent No.2 Corporation is continued as Principal Secretary, though he continued for limited period, especially other directors are also there. The contention raised by the learned counsel for the petitioner that there would be no regular sittings and the Board is not having sufficient mechanism in adjudicating the appeals is not correct, since the appellate authority is adjudicating the appeals regularly and the writ petition hled by the petitioner is not maintainable under law and the same is liable to be dismissed. 5.2. In support of his contention, he relied upon the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Commissioner of Incone Tax and others v. Chhabil Dass Agarwals and Pushpabai Purshottam Udeshi and ' lzor+; r scc oo:
8 others v. M/s.Ranjit Ginning & pressing Co. (p) Ltd. And anothe16. 6. Having considered the rival submissions made by the respective parties and after perusal of the material available on record, the following points arise for consideration: Whether the writ petition liled by the petitioner is maintainable under law, without availing the remedy of appeal as provided under Rules/ Regulations of the respondent Corporation? Whether the impugned order passed by respondent No.2 is in accordance with the law and Rules? Whether the petitioner is entitled the relief as sought in the writ petition? POINT Nos. I AND 3: 7. It is an undisputed fact that the petitioner was initially appointed as Non-Technical Work Inspector in the respondent Corporation. Later on, the respondent Corporation has taken his services as Mandal-in-Charge (MIC) by allotting Assistant Engineer,s duties. It appears from the record that on O4.OB.2O|4 the respondent Corporation received complaint that several grave irregularities were committed by the Housing officials in construction of houses under Indiramma Housing Programme Phase-lll at Noothankal Village and Mandal and also news items were published in Eenadu Daily 1 2 3 u (ts'17) 2 scc't4s
9 Newspaper. The District Collector, Nalgonda, directed the Executive Engineer (H), Suryapet, to conduct preliminary enquiry. Pursuant to the same, the Executive Engineer (H), Suryapet, has constituted four teams to conduct house to house verification. The said four teams have conducted physical verification of 660 houses sanctioned to Noothankal Village under Indiramma housing schemes and they have submitted preliminary enquiry report dated 08.10.2014, wherein it is specihcally stated that as against 660 houses sanctioned in the village, financial irregularities are occurred with respect to 250 houses to an amount of Rs. 1,03,19,115/- and further stated that the petitioner and other officials have released an amount of Rs.71,54,600 l- for 742 houses from O6.05.20i3 to 12.05.2014. It further appears from the record that basing upon the preliminary enquiry report, the respondent Corporation initiated disciplinary proceedings against the petitioner and other ofhcials placing them under suspension on 04.O2.2Ot5 and issued articles of charges on 04.05.2015. It is very much relevant to extract the charges leveled against the petitioner hereunder: That Sri. B. l,atchu Naik, Former MIC (H) Noothnakal Mandal. Nalgonda district committed certain grave irregularities and recommended irregular pay-rnents to the benefrciaries to a tune of Rs. 71.54,60O/- under INDIRAMMA Housing Programme at Noothankal Village and Mandal, Nalgonda district and there by violated pror''rnions of the APCS (Conduct) Rules 1964. The details ald irregularities proved as per enquiry oflicer's report are as follorvs
l0 Sl.No Naturc of irregularities No. of Houses Amount involved ent made without house 66 40,62,150 I Double Pa ment made o4 2,75,600 l- Advance s ent made 37 I1,22,300l- ent made to old House 3l 16,4s,050/- Caste variations o4 50 500 142 7t,s4,6OOl_ Thus Sri. B. Latchu Naik. Former MIC (H), Noothankal Maldal, Nalgonda District by his above mentioned acts has exhibited lack of devotion to duty, and he failed to maintain absolute integrity, thereby violated provisions of the ApCS (Conduct) Rules 1964. According to the statements, he has recommended irregular payments to (742) in- eligible beneficiaries to a tune of Rs. 71,54,500 l- and thereby deviated ttre procedure by colluding with in-eligrble beneficiaries and violaied provisioni and contravened Rule-3 of ApCS (Conduct) Rules 1964(List of exhibited documents as shown in Annexure_ 1 and list of witnesses as shown in Annexure-2). 8. Pursuant to the same, the petitioner submitted explanation on 06-06.20 15. Not satisfying with the same, the respondent Corporation appointed an enquiry officer on 20.O7.2O15 to conduct regular enquiry. The enquiry officer after conducting detailed enquiry submitted enquiry report on 26.os.2o16 wherein it is stated that the petitioner committed serious lapses while discharging as MIC, who grounded the houses without documentation and recorded the measurements and recommended the payments to the beneficiaries without proper veril-rcation of stage of construction of houses and it is contrary to the norms and viorated established conduct ccA Rules and further stated that he has not produced any documents during enquiry. The disciplinary authority issued memo on 21.06.2016 directing the petitioner to submit explanation to the enquiry report. ii
l1 Pursuant to the same, the petitioner submitted explanation on 06.06.2015. The disciplinary authority after considering the said explanation passed the impugned order, dated 30. 1 1.2016, dismissing the petitioner from service apart from ordering for recovery of Rs.39 lakhs. 9. It is very much relevant to place on record that as per Rule 2 of Chapter-Ill of the Andhra Pradesh/Telangana State Housing Corporation Limited General Services Rules (hereinafter called, 'Rules' brevity) of the respondent Corporation, against the order passed by respondent No.2, the remedy of appeal is provided to the appellate authority i.e., Board. The petitioner without availing the statutory remedy of appeal as provided under the CCA Rules, straightaway approached this Court and hled the present writ petition. The only ground raised by the petitioner in the writ petition is that there is no permanent ofhce or secretarial assistance and there is no regular sitting of the Board and the Chairman of the respondent Corporation is holding the post of Principal Secretary to the Government (Housing). Learned standing counsel submitted that the appellate authority is having substantial machinery and adjudicating the appeals in time bound manner. Hence, the ground raised by the learned counsel for the petitioner is not tenable under law on the ground that the Government issued G.O.Ms.No.S dated 25.Oa.2O15 constituted the Board of Directors and the said Board is having power \
to entertain the appeal of hearing submrts t2 L,earned standing counsel during the course that respondent No.2-Managing Director continued as Principal secretary to the Govemment for limited period only and Board consist other directors also and the petitioner even without filing appeal filcd the writ petition. He further submits that petitioner made bold allegations only for the purpose of fi1ing writ petition. The petitioner raised several disputed questions of fact in the writ petition as the scope of judicial review is very limited under Artrcle 226 of the Constitution of India when the statutory remedy of appeal rs provided under the CCA Rules and the same can be adjudged before the appellate authorit5r. The petitioner can raise all the grounds which are raised in this writ petition before the appellate authorit5r. 10. Admittedly, the record reveals that the petitioner and other ofhcials have committed grave financial irreguiarities under Indiramma Housing Scheme. It is already observed supra that the appellate authority is having ar powers to re-assess the evidence and re-examine the entire record and on being satished, it can substitute its decision and the scope of appeal is unlimited. 1 1. In Regional provident Fund Commissioner (2 supral, |ne Honble Supreme Court held that: In the peculiar facts of the case and specially having regard to the nature of the proceedings, we ao ,roi *i"n tJ r. {
13 decide the controversy ra:sed in this case on the question of non-availability of a statutory remedy. The impugned order was passed in the year 2OO4 ar.d thereafter the \tr rit petition was entertained by the two Benches of the High Court and after that tJle matter is pending before us. Now we are in 2Q12. To disrniss the order of the two Benches of the High Court inter atia on the ground that the wdt petition was entertained despite the existence of a statutory remedy and then send it back to the remedy of appeal after a period of eight years, would not, in our judgment, be a correct exercise of judicial discretion. However, we are of the opinion that normally the statutory remedy of appeal should be availed of in a situation like this. 72. However, in subsequent Judgment in Commissioner of Iacome Tax (5 supra), the Hon'ble Apex Court held at para 15 and 16 that: 15. Thus, while it can be said that this Court has recognised some exceptions to the rule of alternative remedy i.e. where the statutory authority has not acted in accordance with the provisions of the enactment in question, or in dehance of the fundamental principles of judicial procedure, or has resorted to invoke the provisions which are repealed, or when an order has been passed in tota-l violation of the principles of natural justrce, the proposition laid down in Thansingh Nathmal case, Titaghur Paper Mills case and other similar judgments that the High Court will not entertain a petition under Article 226 oI the Constitution if a;r effective a-lternative remedy is available to the aggrieved person or the statute under which the action complained of has been taken itself contains a mechanism for redressal of grievalce still holds the freld. Therefore, when a statutory forum is created by law for redressal of grievances, a writ petition should not be entertained ignoring the statutory dispensation. 16. In the instant case, the Act provides complete machinery for the assessment/ reassessment of tax,
14 imposition of penalty and for obtaining relief in respect of any improper orders passed by the Revenue Authorities, and the assessee could not be permitted to abaldon that machinery ald to invoke the jurisdiction of the High Court under Article 226 of the Constitution when he had adequate remedy open to him by an appeal to the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appea-ls). The remedy under the statute, however, must be effective and not a mere forma-1ity with no substantial relief. In Ram and Shgom Co. v. State of Horyona [(1985) 3 SCC 2671 this Court has noticed that if an appea-l is from "Caesar to Caesar's wife" the existence of alternative remedy would be a mirage and an exercise in futility. 13. It is also very much relevant to place on record the Hon,ble Division Bench of this Court in Gaurav Lubricants (Pl Ltd, v. T.N. Mercantile Bank Ltd7, where it is held that: 37,In Union Bank of India u Satganoati Tand.on Hon'ble Supreme Court cautioned High Courts from entertaining writ petitrons when statute prescribes detailed mechanism. It has also cautioned against passing interim orders. Hon'blc Supreme Court satd as under: "43. Unfortunately, the High Court overlooked the settled law that the High Court will ordinarily not entertain a petition under Article 226 of the Constitution if an effective remedy is available to the aggrieved person and that this rule applies with greater rigour in matters involving recovery of taxes, cess, fees, other types of public money and the dues of banks and other frnancial institutions. In our view, while dealing with the petitions involving challenge to the action ' 1zozz1 a nrr szo
l5 taken for recovery of the public dues, etc. the High Court must keep in mind that the legislations enacted by Parliament and State Legislatures for recovery of such dues are a code unto themselves inasmuch as they not only contain comprehensive procedure for recovery of the dues but also envisage constitution of quasi-judicial bodies for redressal of the grievance of aly aggrieved person. Therefore, in all such cases, the High Court must insist that before availing remedy under Article 226 of the Constitution, a person must exhaust the remedies availabie under the relevant statute. 38. As held by Hon'ble Supreme Court in L. Chandra Kumarv. Union of India, the Debts Recovery Tribunal is a duly constituted Tribunal vesting jurisdiction on matters arising out of SARFAESI Act, 2OO2 and is the Court of first instalce. When a person has a statutorily engra-fted remedy available to redress his grievance, the writ Court does not entertain the writ petition and relegates him to avail the said remedy. Thus, even otherwise writ petitioners have to avail remedy under the Act, 2002. 14. In M/s RKI Builders Private Limited vs- Union of lndia, Ministry of Finances, the Division Bench of this Court held that: 17.8. In Samarath Infrabuild (I) Pvt Ltd, the Madhya Pradesh High Court following the decision of Madras High Court referred to above and held as under: "14. On due consideration of the aforesaid, we are of the view that law on the subject is well settled by tJre Apex Court in the case of Mardia Chemicals Ltd. V/s. Union of India &Ors. (Supra), as well as by the Deihi High Court in the r zozzlas err n+
l6 case of Dr. Yashwant Singh &Anr. V/s. Indian Barrk &Anr. (Supra) and Madras High Court in the case of Gain- N-Nature Food Product V/s. Union of India (Supra). The classificalion of NPA is not subject to judicia.l review. Once the Bank authorities have classifred account as NpA, the writ court would have no role to play in deciding such any issue/suit. The proper course of the appelialt is to challenge the action by frling a statutory appeal as directed under Section 17 of SARFAESI Act,2OO2. 18. The remedy under Article 226 of tt,:e Constitution of India is extraordinar5r and knows no bounds. Wherever injustice is caused to a person writ Court extends its iong arm of justice and reaches out to a person in need. Though, Art:cle 226 is very wide, the constitutional Courts have imposed self-imposed restraint on exercising its extraordinar5z jurisdiction. Statutes ard Administrative orders dealing with a particular aspect do provide mechanism to redress grievances arising out of a statute or administrative order. Sometimes, more than one remedy is provided, like Original Authority, Appellate Authority and Revisional Authority. They also create statutory Tribunals with layers of redressal mecharrism. Such forums are effective and efhcacious to dress the grievance of a person. Whenever the Court notices that the grievance ventilated before the Court can be addressed by a duly constituted administrative authority/quasi judicial body, it relegates t1.e person to avail the said remedy before knocking its doors. In the following decisions, Hontrle Supreme Court Succinctly stated the need to avail statutorily engrafted remedy before availing the remedy under Article 226 of the Constitution of India
t7 15. In the above said judgments, the Hon'ble Apex Court and Division Bench of this Court speciflcally held that the party approached the Court without availing the statutory remedy of appeal provided under Statute or Regulations and CCA Rules, the party is not entitled to avail the remedy of writ petition straightaway invoking the provisions of Article 226 of th,e Constitution of India, and further held that the statutory forum is created by law for redressal of the grievance, a writ petition should not be entertained ignoring the statutory dispensation. 16. In the case on hand, as per the Rule 2 of Chapter-Ill of Rules of the respondent Corporation, against the order passed by respondent No.2 Corporation, the statutory appeal is provided before the appellate authority. The petitioner without availing the remedy of appeal filed the writ petition invoking the jurisdiction of this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, which is not permissible under law. Point Nos. 1 and 3 are answered accordingly. 17 . As the point Nos. 1 and 3 are answered, no further adjudication is required with regard to point No.2, as the present writ petition stands dismissed on the ground of availability of alternative remedy. 18. Having regard to the view expressed by the Hon'ble Apex Court and Division Bench of this Court, when the petitioner has an effective and efhcacious remedy under Rules of the respondent Corporation, 4= l I I
18 the Court is not inclined to exercise the jurisdiction under Article 226 of Constitution of India. However, the petitioner is granted iiberty to hle appeal before appellate authority within a period of four (4) weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order, if the petitioner files appeal within in the stipulated time, the appellate authority, without insisting the delay, decide the appeal on merits after giving opportunity to the petitioner including personal hearing, uninfluenced by any of the observations made in this order within a period of two months thereafter. It is made clear that this Court has not expressed opinion on merits and it is open to the petitioner to raise all the pleas/grounds which are available to him under law before appellate authorit5r. 19. With the above directions, the writ petition accordingly. There shall be no order as to costs. 4 1S dismissed, To, In view of dismissal of main writ petition, interlocutory applications pending, if any, in this writ petition shall stand closed. SD/. MOHD. SANAULLAH ARI ASSISTANT REGI RAR //TRUE COPY// SECTIO FFICER One CC to SRI Ir/.VENKAT RAM REDDY, Advocate [OPUC] One CC to SRI B.SHIVA KUIMAR, SC FOR TSHCL [OPUC] TwoCCstoGPFORSERVICES-I,HighCourtfortheStateofTelanganaat Hyderabad [OUT] 1. 2. 2 T BS GJP CD Copies
HIGH COURT DATED: 0311112023 ORDER WP.No.740 of 2017 DISMISSING THE WRIT PETITION, WITHOUT COSTS ( 1HE sTeT6 0 3 fiill il?3 q --l +' t.i-,\:: \]',.] v .) * fr-S)/,, C' 'r \\.