Maharashtra Ex Servicemen ... vs M/S Saikor Secuity Kinetics
2021 Latest Caselaw 1679 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.173 of 2021

                 (Taken up through video conferencing)

 Maharashtra Ex-servicemen Corporation Ltd.,
 (Government of Maharashtra Undertaking)
 Rep.by it's Managing Director, Raigad,
 Opposite National War Memorial,
 Ghorpadi, Pune, Maharashtra State.     ..   Appellant

                                Versus

 M/s.Saikor Security Kinetics,
 Rep.by it's proprietor
 Lt.,Col., K.S.Rao (Retired Indian Army),
 R/o. Appikatla village, Bapatla Mandal,
 Guntur District and 11 others.           ..       Respondents


 Counsel for the Appellant          :   Mr.Maheswara Rao Kuncheam

 Counsel for Respondent No.1        :   Mr.Venkateswara Rao Gudapati

 Counsel for Respondent             :   Mr.N.Harinath, Asst.Solicitor General
 Nos.2,3,5,6,9

 Counsel for Respondent No.4        :   Mr.V.Maheswara Reddy, G.P. for Home

 Counsel for Respondent             :    ---
 Nos.7,8,10,11,12

                       JUDGMENT (ORAL)

Date: 22.03.2021

(per Arup Kumar Goswami, CJ)

Heard the learned counsel for the parties.

2) This appeal is preferred against the order dated

18.02.2021 passed by the learned single Judge in W.P.No.18630

of 2020, by respondent No.9 in the writ petition.

3) A perusal of the order under challenge goes to show

that respondent Nos.9 to 12 had not chosen to appear before the

court despite receipt of notice.

4) On a question being posed by the Court,

Mr.Maheswara Rao Kuncheam, learned counsel for the appellant,

submits that it is a fact that the appellant/respondent No.9

received notice, but could not appear due to certain reasons.

5) When despite receipt of notice, the respondent No.9

did not choose to appear, we are not inclined to entertain this

appeal.

6) It is submitted by Mr.Maheswara Rao Kuncheam that

the appellant will file application for review of the order passed by

the learned single Judge explaining the grounds which prevented

it from appearing before the learned single Judge.

7) In view of the above submission, while not

entertaining this appeal, we observe that the appellant may file

such application, as submitted by Mr.Maheswara Rao Kuncheam,

and in the event of filing of such application, the same shall be

considered on its own merits.

8) Accordingly, this Writ Appeal is disposed of. No costs.

Pending miscellaneous applications, if any, shall stand closed.

ARUP KUMAR GOSWAMI, CJ C. PRAVEEN KUMAR, J

GM