V .Venkataramudu S/O V.Kondanna, vs The Government Of Andhra Pradesh, ...
2021 Latest Caselaw 3905 AP

       HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE U.DURGA PRASAD RAO

WRIT PETITION Nos.32566, 32844, 34750, 34760, 35016, 35069,
         35748, 37153, 37324 AND 38647 OF 2014

COMMON ORDER:

      Since the subject matter in all these writ petitions are one and

the same, these writ petitions are disposed of by the common order.

2.    The grievance of the petitioners in all these writ petitions is that

the action of the respondents in trying to terminate the contract works

of the petitioners in running the mid-day meals in the respective

schools without there being any plausible reason and without issuing

any notice is illegal, arbitrary and violative of Articles 14 and 19(1)(g)

of the Constitution of India and Principles of natural justice and pass

suitable orders.

3. Heard learned counsel for petitioners and learned Assistant

Government Pleader for Education representing on behalf of the

respondents.

4. Learned Assistant Government Pleader for Education, relying

upon the judgment dated 31.10.2019 in W.P. Nos.8037 of 2019 and

batch, argued that said judgment also relates to the implementation of

mid-day meals scheme by the Government and challenge of some of

the petitioners was against their removal and hence, the said judgment

squarely applies to the cases on hand and thus, requested to dispose of

these writ petitions in terms of the said judgment.

5. On a close scrutiny of the judgment in W.P. No.8037 of 2019

and batch, it is noticed that a learned single judge of this Court having

relied upon the earlier division bench judgment in D.Ameena Bee v.

Commissioner, Anantapur Municipality, Anantapur1, has held that,

in his opinion, the petitioners therein had not made out a case for

issuance of a writ of mandamus and the Court did not find an

enforceable legal/statutory right that was available to the petitioners

which would entitle them to invoke the extra ordinary jurisdiction of

this Court and seek a writ of mandamus, dismissed the writ petitions.

6. Needless to emphasize, these writ petitions are squarely

covered by the aforesaid judgment. By following the said judgment

and in terms thereof, these writ petitions are dismissed. No costs.

As a sequel, interlocutory applications pending, if any, shall

stand closed.

_________________________ U.DURGA PRASAD RAO, J

04.102021 SS

2005 (2) ALT 576