IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT HYDERABAD FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA & THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH (Special Original Jurisdiction) TUESDAY, THE TWENTY SECOND DAY OF TWO THOUSAND AND FOURTEEN PRESENT THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE VILAS V. AFZULPURKAR WRIT PETITION No. 18167 of 2014 BETWEEN M.Prabhakar AND ... PETITIONER The State of Telangana, Rep. by its Principal Secretary (Department of Revenue), A.P. Secretariat Building, Hyderabad and others.
...RESPONDENTS The Court made the following:
ORDER:
Petitioner, who claims to be displaced on account of the acquisition by NTPC, states that his father was owner of Ac.0-10 guntas of land in Survey No.443, Kundanapalli Village, Peddapalli Taluq, which was acquired for the purpose of establishment of super thermal power project in the year 1979 and as per rehabilitation package, the affected land holders were given option to qualify for employment in a preferential basis in the capacity as a land oustee. Petitioner states that within his family nobody has been granted the benefit of employment. However, petitioner’s father had made an application on 29.12.2001, but the same, however, was rejected under the impugned proceedings, dated 02.01.2002. The said memo rejecting the claim of the petitioner’s father is now sought to be challenged in the present writ petition.
2. Learned counsel for the petitioner states that the petitioner, who is the successor is entitled to be considered and that though the request of the petitioner’s father was rejected, no appointments, as such were made and the appointments are now being taken up in terms of the said policy to provide jobs to the land oustees.
3. Though I had heard the matter on two occasions, at the request of the learned counsel for the petitioner, I am unable to find any justification to entertain the writ petition as against the impugned order after lapse of more than 12 years. No explanation, much less plausible explanation, explaining the delay and latches, is forthcoming in the affidavit filed by the petitioner. Even otherwise, the claim of the petitioner’s father having been rejected as per the reasons given in the said memo based on the circulars issued, I am unable to see any justification for the petitioner to challenge the said memo at this distance of time. Hence, I am not inclined to entertain the writ petition. However, learned counsel for the petitioner states that the posts are now being filled up by the respondents and that petitioner’s case deserves to be considered. If that is so, it is open for the petitioner to make appropriate request to the respondents, which shall be considered by the respondents, in accordance with law and as per the policy, and take appropriate decision in the matter.
Subject to the above, the writ petition is dismissed. As a sequel, the miscellaneous applications, if any, shall stand closed. There shall be no order as to costs.
VILAS V. AFZULPURKAR, J July 22, 2014 LMV