IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) FRIDAY, THE TENTH DAY OF JULY TWO THOUSAND AND NINE PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE V.ESWARAIAH and THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE P.SWAROOP REDDY WRIT PETITION No.13683 of 2009 Between: P.Ashok Kumar S/o Prasad Rao Bheemavaram Municipality W.G District Door No.7-7-51/1 Narasaiah Agraharam Near Anjaneyswamy Temple Kumandavalli Road Bhimavaram-3 W.G District ..... PETITIONER AND 1 The Regional Director Cum-Appellate Commissioner of Municipal Administration Rajahmundry East Godavari 2 The Commissioner & Director of Municipal Administration Andhra Pradesh Yousufguda Hyderabad 3 State of A.P rep.by its Special Secretary to Govt Municipal Administration & Urban Development Dept Secretariat Building Hyderabad 4 The Commissioner Bhimavaram Municipality Bhimavaram W.G District .....RESPONDENT(S) 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 issue order or direction more particularly one in the nature of Mandamus declaring the order of the Hon'ble Tribunal Dt 30-6-2009 in OA No.7112/2009 in not granting interim relief sought by the petitioner in the OA as arbitrary illegal erroneous apart from violating Article 14,16 and 21 of the constitution of India and issue consequential order suspending the constitution of India and issue consequential order suspending proceedings Roc No.506/2004-A3 dt 27-5-2009 issued by the 1st respodent pending disposal of the O.A No.7112/2009 by the Hon'ble Tribunal. Counsel for the Petitioner:MR.P.V.KRISHNAIAH Counsel for the Respondents: GP FOR SERVICES I The Court made the following : THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE V.ESWARAIAH and THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE P.SWAROOP REDDY WRIT PETITION No.13683 of 2009 ORDER: (per the Hon’ble Sri Justice V. Eswaraiah) The petitioner herein filed O.A.No.7112 of 2009 before the A.P.Administrative Tribunal, Hyderabad, seeking to set aside the dismissal order passed by the 1st respondent herein vide proceedings Roc.No.506/2004-A3, dated 27-05-2009, as the same is illegal, arbitrary and violative of Articles 14, 16 and 21 of the Constitution of India. The Tribunal by order, dated 30-06-2009, while admitting the said O.A., issued notice to the respondents returnable in four weeks. This writ petition is filed questioning the action of the A.P.Administrative Tribunal, Hyderabad, in not granting interim suspension of the proceedings Roc.No.506/2004-A3, dated 27- 05-2009. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that charge framed against the petitioner stating that he has committed certain irregularities in connection with sanction of NSDP tap connections while he was working as Taps Clerk in Pithapuram Municipality causing loss of Rs.58,500/- to the municipal funds, was allegedly proved and therefore, he was dismissed from service. It is contended that there is no misappropriation of funds and that it is not the case of the respondents that he has collected and did not pay the amount, but he has collected less amount and paid the same and, therefore, there is no temporary or permanent misappropriation of funds. It is further contended that in fact for alleged less collection of funds for sanction of NSDP tap connections, he himself paid an amount of Rs.31,500/- to the Department though he has not collected the same from the concerned persons. We are not inclined to express any opinion with regard to the merits of the case, as the said O.A. filed by the petitioner is pending before the A.P.Administrative Tribunal, Hyderabad. The subject matter of this writ petition is squarely covered by a Division Bench judgment of this Court in R.MANJULA AND ANOTHER Vs. PRINCIPAL SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT, REVENUE (SERVICES.I) DEPARTMENT, HYDERABAD AND ANOTHER[1], wherein the Division Bench made the following order: “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 themain 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.” Accordingly, this writ petition is dismissed in view of the aforesaid Division Bench judgment of this court. There shall be no order as to costs. At this juncture, the learned counsel for the petitioner submits that notice was ordered on 30-06-2009 and that four weeks time was already over. If that be so, we request the Tribunal to consider and dispose of the interim prayer within three weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. ________________ V.ESWARAIAH, J _____________________ P.SWAROOP REDDY, J Date:10-07-2009 Note: Issue C.C. in three days (B/o) Prv [1] 2002 (3) ALD 648 (DB)