HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE NOOTY RAMAMOHAN RAO W.P. Nos. 16292 of 1998 DATED: 20-07-2007 Between:- Parikala Subba Rao …Petitioner And The Depot Manager, APSRTC, Nuzvid Depot, Nuzvid, Krishna District and two others …Respondents ORAL ORDER : Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri Manmadha Reddy, learned counsel for the respondents. This writ petition has been instituted seeking the following relief : “For the reasons mentioned in the accompanying affidavit, the petitioner herein prays that this Hon’ble Court be pleased to issue any writ, order or direction more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus declaring that the first respondent has passed the impugned order dated 12.5.1998 in No.P3/118(1)/95- NZD, without jurisdiction and thereby the impugned order is illegal, and without jurisdiction and consequently to quash the same; or to pass any other order or orders as this Hon’ble Court deem fit in the circumstances of the case.” But, however, there are certain welcome developments that have taken place during the pendency of this writ petition. The writ petitioner preferred a Criminal Appeal No. 1063 of 1997 to this Court against the conviction and sentence imposed by the Sessions Court. The said criminal appeal was allowed on merits. Therefore, the writ petitioner has approached the Regional Manager, APSRTC, Vijayawada, who considered the entire matter and passed orders setting aside the orders of removal from service passed by the Depot Manager, Nuzvid, which is the impugned order in this writ petition. There are certain conditions subject to which the writ petitioners future service conditions are sought to be regulated by the Regional Manager in his order passed on 26.8.2005. The learned counsel Sri Satyanarayana would urge that some of these conditions in particular are very onerous and they are totally uncalled for and unwarranted. But, however, the other side is handicapped in not being in a position to defend the orders passed by the Regional Manager on 26.8.2005. Instead of permitting the Regional Manager to be impleaded as 4th respondent to this old writ petition and then permit the relief portion to be amended appropriately and later on provide an opportunity to the other side to contest the writ petition in its modified form, I consider it appropriate to grant liberty to the writ petitioner to constitute a proper petition calling in question the orders passed by the Regional Manager on 26.8.2005 if the writ petitioner feels aggrieved, inasmuch as it is altogether a different and new cause of action. With this the present writ petition stands disposed of. No costs. -------------- knk 20.07.2007