IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) FRIDAY, THE EIGHTH DAY OF AUGUST TWO THOUSAND AND EIGHT PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE G.CHANDRAIAH WRIT PETITION NO : 28330 of 1997 Between: 1. Ch. Suri Babu, S/o. Chingaiah, R/o. Kandukur, Prakasam District. 2. P. Jayarami Reddy, S/o. Veera Swamy Reddy, R/o. Ongole, Prakasam District. ..... PETITIONERS AND 1 The Regional Manager, APSRTC., Prakasam Region, Ongole, Prakasam District. 2 Depot Manager, APSRTC., Kandukur, Prakasam District. 3 Depot Manager, APSRTC., Ongole, Prakasam District. .....RESPONDENTS 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 an appropriate Writ, Order or direction, preferably one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus, declaring the action of the Respondents-2 and 3 in issuing orders of PUT OF DUTY to the petitioners by orders dated 1-10-1997 and 12-8-1997 respectively, as illegal, arbitrary and violative of Articles-14, 16 and 21 of the Constitution of India, and consequently direct the respondents to continue the petitioners as Drivers, and pass Counsel for the Petitioner:MR.N.RAVI PRASAD Counsel for the Respondent No.: . The Court made the following : IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) FRIDAY, THE EIGHTH DAY OF AUGUST TWO THOUSAND AND EIGHT PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE G.CHANDRAIAH WRIT PETITION NO : 25688 of 2007 Between: Ch.Suri Babu, S/o.Singaiah, Kandukuru Depot, Kandukur,Prakasam Dist ..... PETITIONER AND 1.The Regional Manager, A.P.S.R.T.C,Prakasam Region, Ongole,Prakasam Dist 2.The Depot Manager,A.P.S.R.T.C Kandukur,Prakasam Dist 3.The Depot Manager,A.P.S.R.T.C, Ongole,Prakasam Dist .....RESPONDENTS 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 a writ order or direction more particularly one in the nature of Mandamus declaring the action of the 2nd respondent in passing the removal order vide proc.No.P1/P2/852(3)/97-KDKR Dt.24-7-2007 by the 2nd respondent removing the petitioner from service without giving any opportunity to the petitioner,on the ground that the writ petition filed in W.P.No.28330 of 1997 before the Hon,ble High Court was dismissed on 28-2-2007 as illegal,arbitrary againt the principles of nature justice and violative of Articles 19(1) and 21 of the Constitution of India and consequently set-aside the Impugned order Proc.No.P1/P2/852(3)/97-KDKR Dt.24- 7-2007 of the 2nd respondents to forthwith reinestate the petitioner into service with all consequential benefits protecting his service and pay and to pass Counsel for the Petitioner:MR.N.RAVI PRASAD Counsel for the Respondent No.: C.PRAKASH REDDY(SC FOR APSRTC) The Court made the following : COMMON ORDER: WPMP. No.34995 of 2007 in W.P. No.28330 of 1997 has been filed seeking to grant leave to the petitioner to engage a counsel of his choice to represent and to reopen petition filed along with this application. The case of the petitioner is that he filed W.P. No.28330 of 1997 seeking to issue a Writ of Mandamus declaring the action of the respondents 2 and 3 in issuing orders of put of duty to the petitioners by order dated 01-10-1997 and 12-08-1997 respectively as illegal, arbitrary and violative of Articles 14, 16 and 21 of the Constitution of India and consequently direct the respondents to continue the petitioners as Drivers. This writ petition was dismissed as infructuous on 28-02-2007 by this Court. It is submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that by virtue of interim order dated 29-10-1997 passed in WPMP. No.33005 of 1997 by this Court the petitioner was continuing in service till he removed from the service by order dated 24-07- 2007. Questioning the said removal order the petitioner also filed another W.P. No.25688 of 2007. In that view of the matter, he submits that it was only without there being any instructions from the petitioner, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner in W.P. No.28330 of 1997 made a representation that the subject matter of the writ petition has become infructuous and the same was dismissed by this Court as infructuous by order dated 28-02-2007. Therefore, W.P. No.28330 of 1997 is required to be reopened and the learned counsel requested this Court to grant leave to the petitioner to engage a counsel of his choice. On the other hand, the learned standing counsel appearing for the respondents submitted that the undisputed fact is that subsequent to the dismissal of the W.P. No.28330 of 1997 vide order dated 28-02-2007 the enquiry has been conducted and on the basis of the enquiry the petitioner was removed from the service by order dated 24-07-2007. Questioning the same, another W.P. No.25688 of 2007 has been filed. In view of the same, the petitioner is not entitled to any relief in W.P. No.28330 of 1997. Further there is no useful purpose would be served either on account of granting leave to the petitioner to engage a counsel and consequently reopening the case, in view of the fact that the petitioner already removed from the service and questioning the same he filed another writ petition. Having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case, and the submissions made by the learned counsel on either side, I am of the considered view that since the petitioner already removed from the service vide order dated 24-07-2007 questioning which the petitioner also filed W.P. No.25688 of 2007 no cause of action would survive in W.P. No.28330 of 1997, which has been dismissed as infructuous. In view of the above, WPMP. No.34995 of 2007 is closed. W.P. No.25688 of 2007 has been filed questioning the proceedings dated 24-07- 2007 of the 2nd respondent removing the petitioner from the service without giving any opportunity on the ground that the W.P. No.28330 of 1997 was dismissed, as illegal, arbitrary against the principles of natural justice and violative of Articles 19(1) and 21 of the Constitution of India and consequently set aside the impugned order dated 24-07-2007 directing the respondents to forthwith reinstate the petitioner into service with all consequential benefits protecting his service and pay. This Court on 11-02-2008 issued Rule nisi. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that the petitioner was removed from service on the ground that he did not possess a valid driving licence. He further submits that by virtue of a Circular dated 11-08-2000 issued by the Management, the case of the similarly situated employees, who joined in service with a valid driving licence but subsequently proved to be fake, has been considered by reinstating them into service, provided they obtained fresh valid driving licence. Though the case of the petitioner is similar to those reinstated into service, his case has not been considered. Learned counsel on either side submits that alternative remedy of appeal is available to the petitioner against the order dated 24-07-2007 passed by the 2nd respondent and accordingly requested this Court to permit the petitioner to file an appeal before the appellate authority. Having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case and the submissions made by the learned counsel on either side and without going into the merits of the case, the writ petition is disposed of giving liberty to the petitioner to avail alternative remedy of appeal before the appellate authority taking all the pleas that are available to him, within a period of three weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. Thereafter, the appellate authority is directed to pass appropriate orders on such appeal, within a period of two months, in accordance with law, without being influenced by any of the observations made by this Court. Accordingly, in the result, WPMP. No.34995 of 2007 is closed and W.P. No.25688 of 2007 is disposed of. There shall be no order as to costs. ______________________ JUSTICE G. CHANDRAIAH Date: 08-08-2008 NOTE: Issue certified copy of the order within two days. B/o. LSK