N Venkata Narasimha Rao vs The Ap Central Power Distribution ...
2023 Latest Caselaw 4263 AP

                                    1


            HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE D.V.S.S.SOMAYAJULU
                                  AND
        HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE DUPPALA VENKATA RAMANA


                           I.A.No.1 of 2023
                                   In
                         W.A.No.375 of 2023


O R D E R: (per Hon'ble D.V.S.S.Somayajulu,J)


       This application is filed by the appellant for suspension of the

order passed by the learned single Judge in W.P.No.30132 of 2021

dated 20.02.2023.

2.     This Court has heard Sri K.R.Srinivas, learned counsel or the

petitioners/appellants and Sri V.R.Reddy Kovvuri for the respondents.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioners argued in line with what is

stated in his grounds of appeal and the affidavit filed in support of his

contentions. He also cited a judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court

of India in Civil Appeal No.5966 of 2021 and batch (Ajay Kumar

Shukla and others v. Arvind Rai and others) downloaded from

lawtrend.in to argue that on a question of delay in filing the writ

petition, the Hon'ble Supreme Court has clarified the position in this

judgment and the finding of the learned single Judge is contrary to

law.

4. On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondents

supported the order passed and points out that the petitioners

conduct disentitles them from stay. He also points out that the

petitioners have approbated and reprobated and if the order is

suspended, the entire organization, structure, seniority etc., will get

disturbed. He also pointed out that both the writ petitioners are

experienced officers having knowledge of the department and its

promotional channels, therefore, it is stated that they cannot now

again seek a remedy from this Court after exercising their options etc.

5. This Court after hearing both the learned counsels notices that

on a question of delay, in view of the recent judgments cited, the

appellants are on a better ground. Whether the conduct of the

petitioners and the said delay would disentitle them from reliefs is a

matter to be decided in the writ appeal when it is finally heard. It

cannot be decided now.

6. As far as the question of stay is concerned, this Court notices

that petitioners were given options for allocation to APSPDCL or

APCPDCL. They have specifically exercised their options which were

accepted. They again sought for a withdrawal from this option. This

was also accepted. Learned single Judge considered these aspects. In

addition, he also considered the rule position before coming to the

conclusions.

7. In the opinion of this Court, in view of this conduct and the rule

position, suspending the order passed by the learned single Judge at

this stage is not really warranted in the circumstances of this case.

The issues raised are matters which have to be heard and decided

finally in the course of hearing of the writ appeal itself.

8. Therefore, this Court is of the opinion that the petitioners are not

entitled to any stay as prayed for in I.A.No.1 of 2023. The application

is therefore dismissed. The opinions expressed in the course of this

order are for the dismissal by the interlocutory application only. In

the opinion of this Court, the issues raised are to be decided in the

course of the writ appeal only.

9. List the writ appeal for hearing in due course.

__________________________ D.V.S.S.SOMAYAJULU,J

__________________________________ DUPPALA VENKATA RAMANA,J

Date: 14.09.2023 KLP