IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) FRIDAY, THE NINETEENTH DAY OF JUNE TWO THOUSAND AND NINE PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE V.ESWARAIAH and THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE P.SWAROOP REDDY WRIT PETITION NO : 6249 of 2009 Between: 1 The Government of Andhra Pradesh, REp. by its Principal Secretary, Education Department, Secretariat, Hyderabad. 2 The Director of School Education, Andhra Pradesh, Hyderabad. 3 The Regional Joint director of School Education, Kachiguda, Hyderabad. 4 The District Educational Officer, Hyderabad. ..... PETITIONER(S) AND K. Raghunandan, G.B.P School, Goshaout, Seetharambagh, Asifnagar Mandal, Hyderabad. .....RESPONDENT Petition under Article 226 of the constitution of India praying that in the circumstances stated in the Affidavit filed herein the High Court will be pleased to issuance a Writ of Certiorari or any other appropriate Writ, Order or Direction calling for the records relating to and conected with the Order dated 24-3-2008 in O.A. No. 2080 of 2008 and quash the same. Counsel for the Petitioner:THE ADVOCATE GENERAL Counsel for the Respondent No.: . The Court made the following : ORDER (Per Sri V.Eswaraiah, J.) The State filed this writ petition against the interim order passed by the A.P.Administrative Tribunal in O.A.No.2080 of 2008, dated 24.3.2008, without filing an application to vacate the said interim order, and obtained interim suspension of the said order of the Tribunal. A Division Bench of this Court in R.Manjula and another v. Principal Secretary to Govt., Reve (Services I) Dept., and another[1] held at para 33 as hereunder: “In the light of the foregoing discussion, we are of the considered opinion that this Court in exercise of its jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India would not normally interfere with the discretionary orders passed by the Tribunal. Grant of an interlocutory order or refusal thereof is within the discretion of the Tribunal. This Court would not interfere with such discretion exercised by the Tribunal with regard to the interlocutory orders unless it is established that passing of such interlocutory order or refusal thereof had resulted in an irreversible situation resulting in manifest injustice. It would not be appropriate for this Court to entertain any writ petition only for the purpose of granting an interim order during the pendency of the main proceedings before the Tribunal. However, it would be entirely a different matter if the discretion exercised by the Tribunal in the matter of granting interim reliefs results in incalculable repercussions and public mischief. In such cases where denial of interim orders may lead to public mischief, grave irreparable injury or shake a citizens faith in the judicial process, it is not only the power but the duty of the Court to interfere and grant appropriate relief accordingly. Suffice it to observe, interference of this Court with the exercise of discretion by the Tribunal at interlocutory stage is not a matter of course.” We have dismissed the connected W.P.No.11832 of 2009 by order, dated 19.6.2009, following the aforesaid judgment of this Court. The controversy involved in both the writ petitions is one and the same. The present writ petition is also dismissed accordingly with liberty to the petitioners to approach the Tribunal by filing appropriate application to vacate the said interim order. If any such application is filed, the said application and the contempt case, if any filed by the respondent, may be tagged together and disposed of, as expeditiously as possible, after hearing both the parties in accordance with law. There shall be no order as to costs. ________________ V.ESWARAIAH, J. _________________ P.SWAROOP REDDY, J. 19.6.2009 Note: Issue copy within three days B.O. kpr [1] 2002 (3) ALD 648 (DB)