THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY WRIT PETITION No.5460 of 2011 Dated 28th January, 2011 Between: P.Narasing Rao …Petitioner And The A.P.State Road Transport Coporation Limited and others …Respondents Counsel for the petitioner: Sri Ramana Allu Counsel for respondents: Sri K. Madhava Reddy, standing counsel for APSRTC The Court made the following: O0RDER: This writ petition is filed for the following substantive relief: “….to issue a Writ or direction more particularly one in the nature of mandamus or any other appropriate writ declaring the impugned order/notice of termination which was issued by the 2nd Respondent vide Case No.P3/122(35)/2007:RR dt.5-2-2011, which was served on 10.02.2011 through the 3rd Respondent who is not competent authority is illegal, and unwarranted and subsequently direct the official respondents to set aside the same as it is being illegal, arbitrary and violative of Article 14, 16 & 21 of the Constitution of India and pass such other order or further orders…” At the hearing, Sri K. Madhava Reddy, learned standing counsel for A.P.S.R.T.C., representing the respondents, stated that the impugned proceedings dated 05.02.2011 are only in the nature of a notice for termination and that during the pendency of this writ petition, a final order dated 04.03.2011 was passed by the competent authority i.e., Deputy Chief Traffic Manager, Ranga Reddy Region. Though Sri Ramana Allu, learned counsel for the petitioner, advanced his submissions on the nature of the impugned proceedings, on a proper examination of the impugned proceedings and the order dated 04.03.2011, copy of which was furnished by the learned standing counsel at the hearing, I am of the opinion that in the impugned proceedings, on account of inapt expressions, an impression was created that the same are termination proceedings. However, the caption contained in the impugned proceedings dated 05.02.2011 shows that it is a notice for termination. As fresh order dated 04.03.2011 has followed the impugned proceedings, I am in agreement with the learned standing counsel’s submission that what was issued by way of impugned proceedings was notice for termination but not the final order. Having regard to these facts, the learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that his client may be given liberty to question the final order. Accordingly, the Writ Petition is disposed of with liberty to the petitioner to question the final order dated 04.03.2011. As the learned counsel for the petitioner apprehended that before his client avails the further remedy, he may be dispossessed, the respondents are directed to maintain status quo existing as on today for a period of ten days. As a sequel to disposal of the writ petition, W.P.M.P.No.6791 of 2011 filed by the petitioner for interim relief is disposed of as infructuous. ________________________ C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY, J 28th January, 2011 Note: Issue CC in five days. (B/o) GHN