IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD MONDAY, THE TWENTY SECOND DAY OF JUNE TWO THOUSAND AND NINE PRESENT THE HON'BLE MRS JUSTICE T.MEENA KUMARI and THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE SANJAY KUMAR WRIT APPEAL NO : 809 of 2009 (Writ Appeal under Clause 15 of the Letters Patent against the Order dated 17/07/2008 in WP NO : 12629 OF 2008 on the file of the High Court.) Between: 1) National Remote Sensing Center, a Government of India Enterprise under Department of Space Indian Space Research Organization, Government of India with its Office situated at Balanagar, Hyderabad. 2) The Director, National Remote Sensing Centre, Balanagar, Hyderabad ..... APPELLANTS AND Dr.P.Madhusudhan Rao S/o.Late Seetharamaiah R/o.10-145, Prem Vijayanagar Colony Malkajgiri, Hyderabad .....RESPONDENT Counsel for the Appellant: MR.DEEPAK BHATTACHARJEE Counsel for the Respondent: MR.G.NAGESWARA RAO The Division Bench of this Court made the following : Judgment follows 2nd page THE HON'BLE SMT. JUSTICE T.MEENA KUMARI and THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE SANJAY KUMAR WRIT APPEAL NO : 809 of 2009 J U D G M E N T : (Per the Hon’ble Smt. Justice T.Meenakumari) The writ appeal is filed against order dated 07-7-2008 passed in WVMP.No.2641 of 2008 in WPMP.No. 16270 of 2008 in WP.No.12629 of 2008 by the learned single Judge, whereby the learned single Judge while dismissing the vacate stay application made the interim order granted on 7-7-2008 as absolute. 2. The main writ petition was filed seeking writ of certiorari calling for the records relating to Proceedings in P&GA.PLVD (0365) dated 16-5-2008 passed by the first respondent imposing major penalty of withholding entire pension for a period of two years with immediate effect and to set aside the same after declaring the order dated 16-5-2008 as illegal, improper and violation of the principles of natural justice and to pass such other suitable orders. 3. Heard Sri Deepak Bhattacharjee, the learned standing counsel for the appellants-respondents as well as the Sri G. Nageswara Rao, the learned counsel for the respondent-writ petitioner. 4. Having heard the learned counsel on either side, it appears that the main writ petition filed by the respondent herein is pending and the present writ appeal is filed only against dismissing the vacate stay petition and making the interim order as absolute. Under the above facts and circumstances and in view of the disputed question of facts, we deem it appropriate to direct the Registry to list the main writ petition under the caption ‘for final hearing’ on 13-7- 2009 on the top of the list. 5. With the above direction, the writ appeal is disposed of. No costs. ___________________________ JUSTICE T.MEENA KUMARI ____________________ JUSTICE SANJAY KUMAR 22-6-2009. I s L