IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH: AMARAVATI

****

WRIT PETITION No.20070 of 2024

Dr. P. Indeevar, S/o Late P. Chinnapa Reddy, aged about 44

years, Flat No.1003, Vijaya Block, Manjeera Monarch

Apartment, Mangalagiri – 522 502

… Petitioner

Versus

The State of Andhra Pradesh, Represented by its Principal

Secretary, Department of Medical Health and Family Welfare,

Secretariat Buildings, Velagapudi, Guntur District and others.

… Respondents

DATE OF ORDER PRONOUNCED : 20.02.2025

SUBMITTED FOR APPROVAL :

HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE SUBBA REDDY SATTI

1. Whether Reporters of Local Newspapers

may be allowed to see the order? : Yes/No

2. Whether the copy of order may be

marked to Law Reporters/Journals? : Yes/No

3. Whether His Lordship wish to

see the fair copy of the order? : Yes/No

_____________________

SUBBA REDDY SATTI, J

Page 2 of 17 SRS,J

W.P.No.20070 of 2024

* HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE SUBBA REDDY SATTI

+ WRIT PETITION No. 20070 of 2024

% 20.02.2025

WRIT PETITION No. 20070 of 2024

Dr. P. Indeevar, S/o Late P. Chinnapa Reddy, aged about 44

years, Flat No.1003, Vijaya Block, Manjeera Monarch

Apartment, Mangalagiri – 522 502

… Petitioner

Versus

The State of Andhra Pradesh, Represented by its Principal

Secretary, Department of Medical Health and Family Welfare,

Secretariat Buildings, Velagapudi, Guntur District and others.

… Respondents

! Counsel for Petitioner : Sri D S Sivadarshan

^ Counsel for Respondents : Smt. K.S.G. Padmavathi and

Sri S. Raju, learned Assistant

Government Pleader

< Gist:

> Head Note:

? Cases referred:

1) (1974) 2 SCC 831

2) (1984) 2 SCC 369

3) (1974) 4 SCC 3

4) (1981) 1 SCC 722

5) (1993) 4 SCC 6

This Court made the following:

Page 3 of 17 SRS,J

W.P.No.20070 of 2024

APHC010391772024

IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH

AT AMARAVATI

(Special Original Jurisdiction)

[3331]

THURSDAY,THE TWENTITH DAY OF FEBRUARY

TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE

PRESENT

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE SUBBA REDDY SATTI

WRIT PETITION NO: 20070/2024

Between:

Dr. P. Indeevar ...PETITIONER

AND

The State Of Andhra Pradesh and Others ...RESPONDENT(S)

Counsel for the Petitioner:

1. D S SIVADARSHAN

Counsel for the Respondent(S):

1. GP FOR SERVICES IV

2. K.S.G.PADMAVATHI SC FOR Dr.Y.S.R AAROGYASRI HEALTH

TRUST

The Court made the following:

:: ORDER ::

Challenging the proceedings dated 30.08.2024 issued by respondent

No.3 terminating the services of the petitioner as Joint Executive officer, the

above writ petition is filed.

2. Facts in brief, as per the writ affidavit, the Government introduced a

scheme i.e. ‘Arogya Andhra Pradesh’ with an endeavour to provide quality

Page 4 of 17 SRS,J

W.P.No.20070 of 2024

healthcare to the poor. The Government, for effective implementation of the

scheme, formed respondent No.2-Trust, under the Chairmanship of the

Hon’ble Chief Minister of Andhra Pradesh. Respondent No.3 is the executive

authority of the Trust. A paper publication was issued on 28.06.2019 for filling

up the post of Joint Executive Officer (Dental) (for short ‘JEO’). The petitioner,

after undergoing the selection process, was appointed as JEO on a contract

basis, for one year. The petitioner was responsible for multiple dental clinics

and approval of claims raised under the scheme, for further approval by his

seniors, including respondent No.3. The petitioner’s services were renewed

every year and the petitioner’s term was completed on 24.07.2024. However,

the petitioner’s services were continued with an assurance that regular

renewal proceedings would be issued soon.

b) While so, on 08.08.2024, the petitioner was summoned by an

enquiry committee constituted to inquire into the allegations raised by Sridevi

Smile Dental Clinic, Kadapa, calling for his explanation and the said notice

was served on the petitioner on 28.08.2024. The petitioner by mail dated

30.08.2024 requested respondent No.3 to grant seven days to submit the

explanation. On 30.08.2024 around 12:45 P.M. the enquiry committee

summoned the petitioner to chambers and forced him to submit a reply to the

show the cause notice with an assurance that there was no merit in the

allegations raised by Sridevi Smile Dental Clinic and inquiry proceedings

would be closed. The petitioner, in his reply dated 30.08.2024 stated that most

of the cases mentioned in the show cause notice were not approved by him

and the minor overpayment was due to oversight. The approved claim

amount, including the minor overpayment, did not exceed the pre-authorised

amount. The inquiry report furnished to respondent no.3 with certain findings

was prepared without the issuance of any show cause notice to the petitioner.

c) On 03.09.2024, the petitioner was informed about his termination.

A copy of the termination order was served on the petitioner on 05.09.2024,

Page 5 of 17 SRS,J

W.P.No.20070 of 2024

wherein it was stated that the petitioner’s services were no longer required

given the expiry of his contract. The petitioner is entitled to fair, non-

discriminatory treatment and parity with other employees. The services of the

petitioner are still required, there was no reason to refuse to renew the

petitioner’s contract while continuing the other employees. It is a settled

position of law that even in the cases of contractual employment, no decision

can be made arbitrarily. 30 days is required even for terminating a contract

employee.

3. a) A counter affidavit was filed for respondents 2 and 3. It was

contended, interalia, that the writ petition is not maintainable, since the

petitioner is a contractual employee, and his service can be terminated at any

point as per the terms and conditions. The petitioner failed to explain the

infringement of rights under Part III of the Constitution of India. It was not

disputed about the petitioner’s appointment and his joining service, in

pursuance of paper publication issued by the 2

nd

respondent trust. After the

expiry of the contract, the 2

nd

respondent has decided not to extend the

services of the petitioner, since his services are no longer required.

b) The complaints/petitions dated 10.07.2024, 07.08.2024 and

27.08.2024 were made by one Dr.Prasanna Kumar alleging that the petitioner

caused mental agony by threatening to delist the hospital if his demands were

not met. The 2

nd

respondent received a complaint dated 07.08.2024 and

27.08.2024 from the Managing Director of Sridevi Smile Dental Clinic,

Porumamilla alleging that the petitioner collected a bribe for revoking the

suspension of the licence and the petitioner was also involved in cancelling

the licence of Dental Clinics, those who did not heed his demands.

c) Sridevi Smile Dental Clinic filed W.P.No.16351 of 2024 challenging

the proceedings issued against it, making serious allegations against the

petitioner. The said writ petition was disposed of on 01.08.2024 directing the

2

nd

respondent to conduct enquiry regarding allegations. In pursuance of the

Page 6 of 17 SRS,J

W.P.No.20070 of 2024

order, in the writ petition, and serious allegations levelled against the

petitioner, a committee was constituted by the 3

rd

respondent and enquiry was

duly conducted law by, affording opportunity to the petitioner. In the committee

report dated 27.08.2024, it was observed that the petitioner caused a huge

financial loss to the 2

nd

respondent trust. A show cause notice dated

28.08.2024 was issued to the petitioner and the petitioner sent an explanation

and the same will be considered as per law. The decision not to extend the

term of petitioner was taken by considering the committee report dated

27.08.2024 and therefore, the 3

rd

respondent issued proceedings impugned in

the writ petition.

d) As per the terms of the contract, Clause No.6 indicates that the

agreement will automatically lapse at the end of tenure. The petitioner is

bound by the terms of the contract. The 2

nd

respondent followed the due

procedure and eventually prayed to dismiss the writ petition.

4. A rejoinder was filed by the petitioner. It was contended that the

inspection of Sridevi Smile Dental Clinic was officially assigned by the CEO

based on a complaint. The petitioner and other officers were assigned to carry

out the task. The complaint made by Dr.Prasanna Kumar Reddy alleging

bribery was made since the licence of the hospital was suspended. In fact, the

State Disciplinary Committee report dated 19.04.2024 found that the clinic

was involved in fraudulent claims. Even the enquiry committee appointed to

enquiry into the allegations made by Dr.Prasanna Kumar Reddy, did not

believe those allegations and found them to be untrue and false. No

reasonable opportunity was provided to the petitioner to respond to the show

cause notice properly. Despite the request made by the petitioner, to extend

the time to submit the explanation, the order impugned was passed. The

action of the trust in terminating the services of the petitioner, while continuing

the contracts of similarly situated employees, is arbitrary and discrimination.

Page 7 of 17 SRS,J

W.P.No.20070 of 2024

Even after the expiry of the contract period i.e. 24.07.2024, the services of the

petitioner were utilized till the date of termination proceedings.

5. Heard Sri K.Sivadarshan, learned counsel for the petitioner; Smt.

K.S.G.Padmavathi, learned standing counsel for respondents 2 and 3 and Sri

S.Raju, learned Assistant Government Pleader for Services-I for respondent

No.1.

6. Learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that though the

petitioner is a contractual employee, termination of the petitioner is stigmatic

and without considering the explanation and thus the proceedings impugned

are vitiated. The show cause notice dated 28.08.2024 (Ex.P4) was issued, for

which the petitioner submitted a formal reply on 30.08.2024 (Ex.P5) seeking

time to submit a proper reply and thereafter submitted a preliminary reply on

the same day (Ex.P6). The other Joint Executive Officer, contract employee,

continued and hence, not extending the contract of the petitioner would

amount to parity and discrimination. Except for the petitioner, none of the

other Doctors against whom the committee prima facie found irregularities

were issued with notices. The authorities pre-meditated and issued the

proceedings impugned.

7. Per contra, learned standing counsel for respondents 2 and 3 would

submit that the order of termination was issued in terms of Clause No.6 of the

contract. In fact, the term of the petitioner was completed and the contract

has not been renewed. There is no discrimination and parity. The enquiry

against the petitioner is pending. The petitioner failed to demonstrate

violations of any fundamental right to invoke the jurisdiction of this Court under

Art 226 of the Constitution of India.

8. Now, the point for consideration is:

Page 8 of 17 SRS,J

W.P.No.20070 of 2024

Whether the proceedings impugned suffer from illegality or

arbitrariness?

9. Shorn of all details, there is no dispute regarding the petitioner’s

appointment on a contract basis in pursuance of Ex.P2 notification and the

petitioner rendering services till issuance of proceedings impugned. As per

the contract, the tenure of the petitioner expired on 24.07.2024, however, the

petitioner was allowed to work till 30.08.2024.

10. A show cause notice dated 28.08.2024 (Ex.P4) was issued calling upon

the petitioner to submit an explanation within one day. Immediately, the

petitioner submitted a representation dated 30.08.2024 (Ex.P5) and requested

seven days. In fact, the petitioner submitted a preliminary reply to the show

cause notice on 30.08.2024 (Ex.P6). The basis to issue the show cause notice

is the enquiry report dated 27.08.2024.

11. It is apposite to mention here that the enquiry committee's report was

filed along with a counter affidavit (Ex.R5).

12. A perusal of Ex.R5, Committee report dated 27.08.2024, would disclose

the following findings:

1) There is a nexus between the petitioner and M/s. Raghavi Dental

Hospital, Porumamilla and Identity Dental Hospital, Kadapa, with

improper approvals and escalated payment to the specific hospitals,

which caused huge financial loss to the Dr. NTR Trust and the

misappropriated funds may be calculated for giving notices to the

concerned Trust employees;

2) there is nearly 100% increase in Trust Doctor and JEO approved

amount in comparison with Panel doctor approved amount; and

3) as per the random verification of approved cases, it has been noticed

that the Dental wing has become a syndicate.

Page 9 of 17 SRS,J

W.P.No.20070 of 2024

13. Acting upon the said report (Ex.P4), a show cause notice was issued to

the petitioner pointing out eight irregularities and directing the petitioner to

submit an explanation within one day. Accordingly, the petitioner submitted a

preliminary explanation under Ex.P6.

14. In the explanation, the petitioner specifically pleaded that in respect of

the first and second allegations, the said cases were not approved by him;

that regarding the third allegation, an amount of Rs.1,768/- was paid by

oversight; that in respect of the fifth allegation, it was pointed out that the

evidence attached, is found to be correct; that in respect of sixth allegation, it

was pointed out that the discrepancy amount is Rs.848/- and it is due to

oversight; that in respect of seventh allegation, it was mentioned that the

petitioner did not approve that case; that in respect of eight allegation it was

mentioned that the evidence attached is found to be correct; that as JEO

(Technical), the petitioner has cleared around 1,75,000 cases, since 2019 and

oversight in one or two cases is an unintentional; that the petitioner has never

deviated from the Trust guidelines.

15. Subsequently, the proceedings impugned (Ex.P1) were issued. It is

appropriate to extract the first two paragraphs of the proceedings :

“Vide reference 1

st

cited, Dr. P. Indeevar was appointed as

Joint Executive Officer (Dental) to work on contract basis initially

for a period of one year. His services are extended to work on

contract basis up to 24.07.2024. Now, the contract period of the

said contract employee is expired on 24.07.2024. He was

allowed to work up to 30.08.2024.

In view of the expiry of contract period, his services are no

longer required. Hence, the services of Dr. P. Indeevar Reddy,

Joint Executive Officer (Dental), Dr. NTR Vaidya Seva Trust are

dispensed w.e.f. 30.08.2024 AN and relieved of his duties

accordingly.”

Page 10 of 17 SRS,J

W.P.No.20070 of 2024

16. It is appropriate to note here that in para No.8(j) of the counter affidavit,

it was pleaded as follows:

“… It is further submitted that respondent No.2 decided to

terminate the services of Petitioner herein under Clause 2(c) of

the FTE Contract by following the due process of law, in view of

the Committee’s Report dated 27.08.2024 finding that the

Petitioner herein is causing huge financial loss to the

Respondent No.2 Trust.”

17. Thus, though nothing was revealed in Ex.P1 to dispense with the

services of the petitioner, it is clear that dispensing with the petitioner’s service

is based on the committee’s report and the show cause notice. Mere non-

mentioning of the background situation in the order dated 30.08.2024 (Ex.P1),

cannot by itself be determinative of the nature of the order.

18. The Hon’ble Apex Court in Samsher Singh v. State of Punjab

1

and

Anoop Jaiswal v. Government of India

2

has observed that the form of an

order is not its final determinant and the Court can find out the real reason and

true character behind terminating/removing an employee. In Samsher

Singh’s case, it was held as under:

“80. … The form of the order is not decisive as to whether the

order is by way of punishment. Even an innocuously worded

order terminating the service may in the facts and circumstances

of the case establish that an enquiry into allegations of serious

and grave character of misconduct involving stigma has been

made in infraction of the provision of Article 311 …”

19. In Anoop Jaiswal’s case, it was held as under:

1

(1974) 2 SCC 831

2

(1984) 2 SCC 369

Page 11 of 17 SRS,J

W.P.No.20070 of 2024

“12. It is, therefore, now well settled that where the form of

the order is merely a camouflage for an order of dismissal for

misconduct it is always open to the court before which the order

is challenged to go behind the form and ascertain the true

character of the order. If the court holds that the order though in

the form is merely a determination of employment is in reality a

cloak for an order of punishment, the court would not be

debarred, merely because of the form of the order, in giving

effect to the rights conferred by law upon the employee.”

20. In the case at hand, as discussed supra in Ex.P1, nothing was detailed

regarding the report and notice. However, the basis for not extending the

petitioner’s contract is apparent and, it is the report, wherein some allegations

were made against the petitioner and the inquiry is yet to be concluded. If the

services of the petitioner are dispensed with at that juncture, certainly it will

cause a stigma to the petitioner. The procedure adopted by the CEO of

respondent No.2 suffers from arbitrariness.

21. The Hon’ble Apex Court in E.P. Royappa v. State of Tamil Nadu and

another

3

, while dealing with Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India,

observed regarding arbitrariness:

“85. The last two grounds of challenge may be taken up

together for consideration. Though we have formulated the third

ground of challlenge as a distinct and separate ground, it is really in

substance and effect merely an aspect of the second ground based on

violation of 14 and 16. Art. 16 embodies the fundamental guarantee

that Arts. 14 as there shall be equality of opportunity for all citizens in

matters relating to employment or appointment to any office under the

State. Though enacted as a distinct and independent fundamental

right because of its great importance as a principle ensuring equality of

opportunity in public employment which is so vital to the building up of

3

(1974) 4 SCC 3

Page 12 of 17 SRS,J

W.P.No.20070 of 2024

the new classless egalitarian society envisaged in the

Constitution, Art. 16 is only an instance of the application of the

concept of equality enshrined in Art. 14. In other words, Art. 14 is the

genus while Art 16 is a species, Art. 16 gives effect to the doctrine of

equality in all matters relating to public employment. The basic

principle which, therefore, informs both Arts. 14 and 16 is equality and

inhibition against discrimination. Now, what is the content and reach of

this great equalising principle? It is a founding faith, to use the words

of Bose J., "a way of fife", and it must not be subjected to a narrow

pedantic or lexicographic approach. We cannot countenance any

;attempt to truncate its all-embracing scope and meaning, for to do so

Would be to violate its activist magnitude. Equality is a dynamic

concept with many aspects and dimensions and it cannot be "cribbed

cabined and confined" within traditional and doctrinaire limits. From a

positivistic point of view, equality is antithetic to arbitrariness. In fact

equality and arbitrariness are sworn enemies; one belongs to the rule

of law in a republic while the other, to the whim and caprice of an

absolute monarch. Where an act is arbitrary it is implicit in it that it is

unequal both according to political logic and constitutional law and is

therefore violative of Art. 14, and if it affects any matter relating to

public employment, it is also violative of Art. 16. Arts. 14 and 16 strike

at arbitrariness in State action an( ensure fairness and equality of

treatment. They require that State action must be based on valent

relevant principles applicable alike to all similarly situate and it must

not be guided by any extraneous or irrelevant considerations because

that would be denial of equality. Where the operative reason for State

action, as distinguished from motive inducing from the antechamber of

the mind, is not legitimate and relevant but is extraneous and outside

the area of permissible considerations, it would :amount to mala fide

exercise of power and that is hit by Arts. 14 and 16. Mala fide exercise

of Power and arbitrariness are different lethal radiations emanating

from the same vice : in fact the matter comprehends the former. Both

are inhibited by Arts. 14 and 16.”

Page 13 of 17 SRS,J

W.P.No.20070 of 2024

22. The same was reiterated by another Constitutional Bench in Ajay Hasia

and Others v. Khalid Mujib Sehravardi and Others

4

.

23. At the hearing, learned counsel for the petitioner would elaborate the

scheme of approval qua the role of JEO regarding the bills, as follows:

“Whenever the Hospital raises a claim, it will go to Claim Trust

Executive (Employees of Trust) (hereinafter referred to as ‘CTE’) for

preliminary check to ensure that the patient against whom the claim

was raised had proper entitlement under the Employee Health

Scheme. Thereafter, the claim will be transferred to Claim Panel

Doctor (for short ‘CPD’). The CPDs are external independent doctors

engaged by the Trust for a preliminary assessment of the claim. After

a claim is assessed and approved by the claim panel doctor, it is

forwarded to the Claim Trust Doctor (Employee of Trust) (for short

‘CTD’). CTD further assesses the claim of the Hospital based on the

evidence. In cases where there is a disagreement between the

decisions of the CPD and CTD the case will be escalated to the JEO,

to resolve the difference in approvals. If there is no difference of

opinion between the CPD and CTD, the case will be directly forwarded

to the Executive Officer and subsequently to the Chief Executive

Officer for final approval.

In most cases, differences in approvals arise due to incomplete

or missing evidence submitted by the hospital at the initial stage of

raising the claim before the CPD. In such circumstances, the CPD

may disapprove the claim and disapprove the claim and forward it to

CTD. At that stage, the hospital will be afforded an opportunity to

corroborate its claim by attaching the necessary supporting evidence.

The CTD may review the evidence provided, assess the claim and

approve the claim or reject the claim.

4

(1981) 1 SCC 722

Page 14 of 17 SRS,J

W.P.No.20070 of 2024

In cases of differences of opinion, the matter will be escalated

to JEO, who is obligated to approve the increased claim if the Trust

Doctor receives valid evidence supporting the claim of the hospital.

JEO can modify the approved claim either by increasing or decreasing

by independently evaluating the evidence attached by the hospital.

Thereafter the claims will be forwarded to the Executive Officer and

thereafter to Chief Executive Officer for final approval. JEO has no

power to revoke the suspension of any hospital.”

24. Learned standing counsel did not dispute the above procedure adopted

by respondent No.2 Trust, regarding the schemes and the submissions of the

learned counsel for the petitioner, made in that regard. A perusal of the eight

alleged violations, indicated above, requires further consideration after

affording opportunity to the petitioner and due enquiry. It is too early to

premeditate the issue by respondent No.2.

25. Further, the terms of the contract stipulate that the agreement will

automatically lapse at the end of the tenure mentioned therein. In the case of

the petitioner, the contract employment expired on 24.07.2024. However, was

allowed to work till 30.08.2024. This instance makes the things more than

discernible that respondent No.2, initially did not think to dispense with the

service of the petitioner. However, the report is the basis for every action

including the proceedings impugned.

26. Of course, this Court at this juncture, is not recording any finding

regarding the allegations made against the petitioner qua excess payments

since it is the subject matter of inquiry. At the same time, the instances i.e.

giving one day time to the petitioner to submit an explanation and thereafter

dispensing with his services, demonstrate that the Executive Officer of

respondent No.2 acted arbitrarily.

27. One of the contentions of learned standing counsel is that the petitioner

being a contract employee cannot maintain the writ petition. However, given

Page 15 of 17 SRS,J

W.P.No.20070 of 2024

the above discussion and the facts and circumstances of the case, since the

proceedings suffer from arbitrariness, this Court holds that the writ petition is

maintainable.

28. The further contention of learned counsel for the petitioner is that the

petitioner was discriminated, and in fact, his services are still required and the

work performed by the petitioner is being handled by someone else and the

services of the employees recruited alongside the petitioner are continued on

contract basis. The specific averments to this effect are made in para No.14 of

the writ affidavit. However, in the counter affidavit, it was not specifically

adverted to.

29. When a specific allegation was made by the petitioner, in the affidavit,

and if the same was not traversed by the opponent, it amounts to an

admission. The Hon’ble Apex Court, in Lohia Properties (P) Ltd., Tinsukia v.

Atmaram Kumar

5

, while dealing with Order VIII Rule 5 of CPC, observed that

non-traverse would imply admission. The relevant part is extracted hereunder:

“14. What is stated in the above is, what amount to admit a fact on

pleading while Rule 3 of Order 8 requires that the defendant must deal

specifically with each allegation of fact of which he does not admit the

truth.

15. Rule 5 provides that every allegation of fact in the plaint, if not

denied in the written statement shall be taken to be admitted by the

defendant. What this rule says is, that any allegation of fact must

either be denied specifically or by a necessary implication or there

should be at least a statement that the fact is not admitted. If the plea

is not taken in that manner, then the allegation shall be taken to be

admitted.”

5

(1993) 4 SCC 6

Page 16 of 17 SRS,J

W.P.No.20070 of 2024

30. A Coordinate Bench of this court by order dated 30.08.2024 suspended

the impugned proceedings initially for three weeks and the same is being

extended from time to time. Despite the interim order respondents 2 and 3

failed to implement the same. This shows the scant respect of respondents 2

and 3 to the orders of the Court. In fact, the act of the respondents, impugned

in the writ petition, also violates Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India.

31. Therefore, given the discussion supra, since Ex.P1 suffers from

arbitrariness and violates Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India, the

same is liable to be set aside.

32. Accordingly, this writ petition is allowed. The proceedings No.Dr.NTR

VST/HR/364/2024 dated 30.08.2024 (Ex.P1), issued by respondent No.3, is

hereby set aside. Respondents 2 and 3 shall continue the services of the

petitioner in respondent No.2-Trust.

The findings, if any, recorded in the order are for the disposal of the writ

petition, alone.

However, this order will not preclude respondents 2 and 3 from

proceeding with the inquiry initiated against the petitioner and passing

appropriate orders as per the Rules. No costs.

Consequently, miscellaneous applications pending, if any, shall stand

closed.

___________________________

JUSTICE SUBBA REDDY SATTI

Date : 20.02.2025

Note: LR COPY TO BE MARKED

B/O

IKN

Page 17 of 17 SRS,J

W.P.No.20070 of 2024

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE SUBBA REDDY SATTI

WRIT PETITION No.20070 OF 2024

Dated: 20.02.2025

Note: LR COPY TO BE MARKED

B/O

IKN