Andhra Pradesh Mineral ... vs M/S Murali Manpower Agencies,
2021 Latest Caselaw 1850 AP

         IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH: AMARAVATI

     HON'BLE Mr. JUSTICE ARUP KUMAR GOSWAMI, CHIEF JUSTICE
                               &
             HON'BLE Mr. JUSTICE C. PRAVEEN KUMAR

                         WRIT APPEAL No.184 of 2021

                            (Through video conferencing)

Andhra Pradesh Mineral Development Corporation
Ltd., 294/1D, 100 Feet Road, Kanuru to Nidamanuru
Road, Tadigadapa, Vijayawada - 521 137, Krishna
District, Andhra Pradesh, rep. by its Deputy General
Manager                                                               ... Appellant

                                         Versus

M/s. Murali Manpower Agencies, and another                         ... Respondents

Counsel for the appellant                   :     Mr. V.R.N. Prashanth

Counsel for respondent No.1                 :     Mr. Vedula Srinivas
Counsel for respondent No.2                 :     G.P. for Industries & Commerce

                               JUDGMENT (ORAL)

Dt:19.04.2021

(ARUP KUMAR GOSWAMI, CJ)

Heard Mr. V.R.N. Prashanth, learned counsel for the appellant, Mr. Vedula

Srinivas, learned counsel for respondent No.1 and learned Govt. Pleader for

Industries & Commerce for respondent No.2.

2. This Writ Appeal is presented against the order dated 19.02.2021 passed

in W.P.No.23012 of 2020, with regard to the direction of the learned single Judge

giving liberty to respondent No.1/writ petitioner to make a representation for

consideration of the appellant herein.

3. It is contended by Mr. V.R.N. Prashanth that earlier representation of

respondent No.1/writ petitioner was rejected and, therefore, the order passed by

the learned single Judge giving liberty to make a representation, is not called for.

In this connection, he has drawn our attention to the order dated 25.08.2020

passed by the Vice-Chairman & Managing Director, the Andhra Pradesh Mineral

Development Corporation Ltd. The order reads as follows:

"With reference to the above subject, it is to inform that your claim

for field allowance @ Rs.800/- per location per day towards

Conveyance facilities, First Aid, Food and Drinking Water facilities

for the personnel engaged by your Agency in sand operations is

hereby rejected on the ground that there is no provision in the

agreement entered nor fixed by the APMDC."

4. It is not in dispute that the aforesaid order was not put to challenge earlier.

Since the writ petitioner has not challenged the said order, we are of the

considered opinion that the writ petitioner cannot be permitted to raise the same

grounds once again to initiate a fresh cause of action in the event of rejection of

the claim, all over again. However, we are of the considered opinion that apart

from the issues that have been determined by the order dated 25.08.2020, if the

writ petitioner has got any other grievance, the same may be agitated in the form

of a representation.

5. At this juncture, Mr. Vedula Srinivas submits that in the representation, the

writ petitioner would raise an issue, amongst others, of non-release of the bank

guarantee furnished earlier.

6. Subject to what has been stated above, we find no good ground to

interfere with the order of the learned single Judge and the Writ Appeal stands

disposed of in the light of the aforesaid observations. No order as to costs.

Pending miscellaneous applications, if any, shall stand closed.

ARUP KUMAR GOSWAMI, CJ                                   C. PRAVEEN KUMAR, J

MRR