HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE B. PRAKASH RAO AND HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE P. SANJAY KUMAR WRIT APPEAL No. 1543 OF 2002 ORDER: ( Per Hon’ble Sri Justice B. Prakash Rao) Heard the learned Counsel for the appellant, Sri P.B.Vijaya Kumar today also. None appeared on behalf of the respondents when the matter was posted on 09-09-2009. Even today also, though the names of the learned Government Pleaders are printed specifically showing respective subjects as Services I and II, none appears nor there is any representation on behalf of the respondents. The appellant herein is an unsuccessful petitioner. He is aggrieved by the order dated 09-07-2002 passed by a learned Single Judge dismissing the Writ Petition, wherein he challenged the action of the second respondent in repatriating him to his parent department. Though several grounds were sought to be urged in the Writ Petition, but, however, the learned Single Judge having found that the Writ Petition was filed in the year 2002, which was hopelessly suffers from delay and laches in approaching this Court invoking Article 226 of the Constitution of India, did not find to favour the appellant/petitioner and thereby dismissed the Writ Petition at the admission stage. The case of the appellant/petitioner is that he was initially appointed as Junior Assistant-cum-Typist on 2-6-1987 in Marine and Communication Electronics (India) Limited and subsequently, on 29-4- 1995 he was deputed to the State Election Commission, which authority by proceedings dated 28-3-2000 ordered for repatriation to the parent organization. The appellant/petitioner challenged the said order of repatriation dated 28-3-2000 before the Andhra Pradesh Administrative Tribunal by filing OA.No. 1451 of 2000, wherein, initially interim suspension of the order dated 28-3-2000 was granted. Subsequently, on filing the Vacate Stay Petition, the APAT ultimately dismissed the main OA itself on 15-2-2002. Thereafter, the petitioner preferred the Writ Petition on 10-4-2002. In view of the aforesaid factual situation, there is no delay at all on the part of the petitioner in preferring the writ petition. Perhaps, the approach of the petitioner to AP Administrative Tribunal, passing of the interim order and ultimate dismissal of the OA thereafter by it might not have been brought to the notice of the learned single judge. If the said factual situation is taken into consideration, there is no delay and laches at all on the part of the petitioner in preferring the Writ Petition. In view of the same, the order dated 09-07-2002 passed by the learned single Judge, dismissing the Writ Petition at the admission stage, is set aside and the matter is remanded to the learned Single Judge for fresh disposal. In that view of the matter, we admit the Writ Petition and direct the Registry to post the Writ Petition for hearing before a learned single judge hearing similar matters, in usual course. The Writ Appeal is accordingly allowed. No order as to costs. ----------------------------- JUSTICE B. PRAKASH RAO ----------------------------- JUSTICE P. SANJAY KUMAR Dated 22nd September, 2009. Msnr.