THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE B.PRAKASH RAO AND THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE B.N.RAO NALLA PER THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE B.PRAKASH RAO WRIT PETITION NO.1775 OF 2009 DT.21.09.2010 Between: Mohd.Mahmood, S/o.Late Mohd.Khaja ……..Petitioner Vs. The Government of Andhra Pradesh, Rep.by Secretary to Government and another ……..Respondents. O R D E R: (per the Hon’ble Sri Justice B. Prakash Rao) Heard Smt K. Rajyalakshmi, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, and the learned Government Pleader for Services-II appearing on behalf of the respondent and also Sri P. Ramachandra Reddy, standing counsel for Municipal Corporation, Hyderabad. At their request, the main writ petition is being taken up for disposal. 2. The main facts, which are required to be considered at this stage in brief, where the very writ petition under Article 226 of Constitution of India is being filed, are the petitioner herein is unsuccessful applicant in O.A.No.6775 of 2006 filed under Section 5(6) of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985 before the A.P.Administrative Tribunal, which was disposed of along with other matters in O.A.No.6527 of 2006 and batch. As per the impugned orders dated 09.01.2009, according to the learned counsel for the petitioner, though the question involved in all the O.As is not common as per the facts are concerned, but however, the same were taken up and disposed of without dealing with the impugned orders therein inspite of several contentions with regard to the maintainability of the impugned order were raised by the petitioner. The main submission made on behalf of the petitioner is to the effect that at the relevant point of time, namely the period for which the allegations pertain to, the petitioner was neither posted nor working in Ward-XII of Circle IV of Greater Hyderabad Municipal Corporation and therefore, he could not have been proceeded the case at all for whatsoever the reason. Whereas, this aspect has not been considered and no finding has also been arrived at. Hence, the writ petition. 3. Having heard the counsel and also on perusal of the material, it is found that the petitioner’s case apparently pertains to his termination orders and several contentions were alleged in the said O.A. However, on a reading of the entire common order in O.A.No.6527 of 2006 and batch, there is no consideration of the aspects or grounds raised in O.A.No.6775 of 2006, and there is no finding on the aspect as to the correctness of the termination orders. 4. In view of the same, we are of the view that the matter requires fresh consideration and disposal on merits. 5. The writ petition is accordingly disposed of. The order dated 09.01.2009 is set aside and the matter is remitted back to the file of A.P.Administrative Tribunal for fresh disposal on merits in accordance with law. No order as to costs. ________________ B.PRAKASH RAO J., __________________ B.N.RAO NALLA, J., Dt.21.09.2010 Rns