HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE SANJAY KUMAR WRIT PETITION NO. 2403 OF 2004 DATED 20T H NOVEMBER, 2009 BETWEEN Shaik Masthan …Petitoner And A.P. Transmission Corporation Limited, Rep. by its Managing Director,Vidyut Soudha, Somajiguda, Hyderabad, and ors. … Respondents. HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE SANJAY KUMAR WRIT PETITION NO. 2403 OF 2004 ORDER: The petitioner claims to have been employed in the AP Transmission Corporation Limited (for brevity ‘the AP TRANSCO’) as a contract labourer in a skilled category through a contractor. He seeks a declaration that the action of the respondents in proposing to dispense with his services as a Shift Operator was illegal; and a consequential direction to the respondents to continue him as a contract Sub-engineer. Relevant to note, the petitioner did not choose to implead the Contractor under whom he was working and only arrayed the AP TRANSCO and its oﬃcers as respondents in the Writ Petition. This Court by order dated 10.2.2004, directed the respondents to continue the petitioner in service as a contract Sub-engineer pending disposal of the Writ Petition. The said order was made absolute on 11.2.2005. When the matter was taken up for hearing on 13.11.2009, the learned Counsel for the petitioner and respondents were directed to ascertain the present position. To day, upon instructions, Sri K. Asad Ahmad, Advocate, representing Smt. Soﬁa Begum, learned Counsel for the petitioner, stated that the petitioner’s services were dispensed with in the year 2004 itself. No steps were however taken by the petitioner pursuant to such dispensation, notwithstanding the interim order of this Court. In the light of the aforesaid developments and keeping in mind the fact that the petitioner did not choose to implead the contractor under whom he was working as a party to the Writ Petition, this Court cannot ﬁnd fault with the respondents--AP TRANSCO and its oﬃcers, for not complying with the interim order of this Court. Pertinent to note, the interim order was to continue the petitioner in service as a contract Sub-engineer. In the absence of the contractor, such an order could not be enforced against the AP TRANSCO and its oﬃcers who had no privity of contract with the petitioner. The Writ Petition as framed was misconceived in its inception itself. In view of the dispensation of the petitioner’s services by the contractor as long back as in the year 2004, no cause survives for adjudication. The Writ Petition is accordingly dismissed. No costs. ----------------------------------- JUSTICE SANJAY KUMAR DATED 20T H NOVEMBER,2009. Msnr.