IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) TUESDAY, THE TWENTY THIRD DAY OF JUNE TWO THOUSAND AND NINE PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE V.ESWARAIAH and THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE P.SWAROOP REDDY WRIT PETITION No.11952 of 2009 Between: Dr.Ch.Prabhavathi W/o.G.Sudhaker Rao Ramanthapur, Hyderabad,holding the Full Additional Charge to the post of Additional Director,O/o.Commissioner AYUSH Department, Tilak Road, Abids,. Hyderabad R/o.H.No.1141, MLA colony,Road No.12, Banjara Hills, Hyderab ..... PETITIONER AND 1 State of Andhra Pradesh, rep.by its Prl.Secretary to Government ,Health, Medical and Family Welfare Dept., Secretariat, Hyderabad 2 The Commissioner, Department of AYUSH Tilak Road Abids,Hyderabad 3 Dr.T.Ram Babu, Son of and age not known Rajahmundry, posted as Additional Director(Homeo) O/o.Commissionerate,Dept, of AYUSH,Tilak Road Abids, Hyderabad .....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 a writ in the nature of certiorari call for the relating to the orders passed by the Hon`ble Tribunal refusing to grant interim relief in OA.No.6646 of 2009 dated 11.6.2009 and quash the same by duly declaring the impugned Memo No.6454/I-2/2009-2 dated 20.5.2009 and the consequential G.O.Rt.No.706 dated 10.6.2009 as illegal, bad and arbitrary, and further declare that the petitioner is eligible for transfer to the post of Additional Director (Homeo) with a consequential direction to the Respondents to transfer her to the post of Additional Director (Homeo) with all consequential benefits. Counsel for the Petitioner:MR.J.R.MANOHAR RAO Counsel for the Respondent No.: GP FOR MEDICAL HEALTH & FAMI.WELFARE The Court made the following : THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE V.ESWARAIAH and THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE P.SWAROOP REDDY WRIT PETITION No.11952 of 2009 ORDER: (per the Hon’ble Sri Justice V. Eswaraiah) The petitioner herein filed O.A.No.6646 of 2009 before the A.P.Administrative Tribunal, Hyderabad, seeking to quash Government Memo No.6454/I-2/2009-2, dated 20-05-2009, and the consequential G.O.Rt.No.706, dated 10-06-2009, as the same are illegal and arbitrary. Pending disposal of the said O.A., she sought to suspend Government Memo No.6454/I-2/2009-2, dated 20-05-2009, and the consequential G.O.Rt.No.706, dated 10-06-2009. The Tribunal by order, dated 11-06-2009, issued notice to the respondents returnable in two weeks and that the petitioner herein was also permitted to take out personal notice on the respondents. This writ petition is filed questioning the action of the A.P.Administrative Tribunal, Hyderabad, in not granting interim suspension of the Government Memo No.6454/I-2/2009-2, dated 20- 05-2009, and the consequential G.O.Rt.No.706, dated 10-06- 2009. 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 also 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 notices have been served on the respondents. If that be so, we request the Tribunal to consider and dispose of the interim prayer within two weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. ________________ V.ESWARAIAH, J _____________________ P.SWAROOP REDDY, J Date:23-06-2009 Note: Issue C.C. in two days (B/o) Prv [1] 2002 (3) ALD 648 (DB)