JUDGMENT :- (Per the Hon'ble Smt. Justice T. Meenakumari) 1. The present writ appeal is filed against order dated 02-4-2009 passed in WP.No. 7637 of 2009 by the learned single Judge, wherein the learned single Judge observed that the above writ petition is nothing but sheer abuse of the process of the court and imposed exemplary costs of Rs.10,000/-payable to the AP State Legal Services Authority, Hyderabad, within four weeks from the date of order, failing which the learned single Judge directed the legal services authority to initiate appropriate action against the writ petitioner for recovery of the said amount. 2. The main writ petition has been filed seeking a writ of mandamus to direct the official respondents to take action against the Respondent No.3 as per Rule 17 (2) (ii) of the Railways Services (Conduct) Rules, 1966 in view of hi8s 20 days imprisonment at Central Jail, Rajahmundry and the official respondents protecting the culprit employee and the inaction of the official respondents in spite of representation of the petitioner dated 31-12-2008 as illegal, arbitrary and malafide and violation of fundamental rights guaranteed under Article 14, 16 and 21 of the Constitution of India and to pass such other suitable orders as this Court may deem fit and proper in the circumstances of the case. 3. The learned single Judge having heard the learned counsel for the writ petitioner therein has observed that he has no locus standi of the above mentioned Rule and imposed costs of Rs.10,000-00 to be payable to the A.P. State Legal Services Authority, Hyderabad, in default to take appropriate action against the writ petitioner for recovery of the said amount. Aggrieved by the same, the present writ appeal has been filed. 4. The learned counsel for the appellant-writ petitioner has contended that as the Rules are in force, which enables the Railways to suspend the person under Rule 17 (2) (iii) of the Railways Services (Conduct) Rules, 1966 when he is kept in civil imprisonment for 20 days at Central Jail, Rajahmundry, has filed the above writ petition seeking a direction to invoke the provisions of Rule 17 (2) (iii) of the Railways Services (Conduct) Rules, 1966 against Respondent No.3. He has also contended that in similar circumstances, a writ petition bearing No. 18977 of 2008 has been filed by a person; namely, Karella Eshwara Rao V/s. South Central Railways, Represented by its General Manager, Rail Nilayam, Secunderabad, and in the said writ petition, notice has been ordered by this Court. 5. Having heard the learned counsel for the respondents, the order of the learned single Judge can be set aside and WP.No. 7637 of 2009 can be admitted and notice can be ordered to the respondents. 6. The learned counsel for the appellant has submitted that personal notice has been issued to the Respondent No.3 and the same is served and memo of proof of service under USSR dated 15-12-2009 has been filed. 7. None appears for Respondent No.3. 8. Having heard the learned counsel for the official respondents, the order of the learned single Judge is set aside and the writ petition can be admitted and Sri P. Bhasker takes notice on behalf of Respondent Nos. 1 and 2 and notice be issued to Respondent No.3; namely, Mr. Mahanand Girdhar, s/o Sunder, aged about 52 years, Occupation: Senior Valveman, SSE/Works/BVRM Section, South Central Railways, Vijayawada Division, R/o. H.No. 10-6-14 (25), Loco shed, 10th ward, Gunupudi, Bhimavaram, West Godavari district. The learned counsel for the appellant is also permitted to take out personal notice afresh to Respondent No.3 by registered post with acknowledgement due and file proof of service in token of acknowledgement with the Registry of this Court. 9. With the above observation, Registry is directed to post the main WP.No. 7637 of 2009 on 22-3-2010 for proper adjudication. 10. In the result, the writ appeal is allowed. However, in the circumstances, there shall be no order as to costs.