APHC010214552002 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3332] THURSDAY,THE TWENTY FIRST DAY OF AUGUST TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE RAVI CHEEMALAPATI WRIT PETITION NO: 24913/2002 Between: 1. P.ESWAR REDDY, S/O.PULLA REDDY CONDUCTOR A.P.S.R.T.C., BANAGANAPALLI DEPOT, BANAGANAPALLI, ...PETITIONER AND 1. THE DEPT MAANGER A P S R T C ANR, A.P.S.R.T.C., BANAGANAPALLI, KURNOOL DIST.,. 2. THE CHAIRMANPRESIDING OFFICER, INDUSTRIAL-CUM-LABOUR COURT, ANANTAPUR. ...RESPONDENT(S): Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed therewith, the High Court may be pleased to issue a writ order or direction particularly one in the nature of writ of mandamus declared the action of the respondent in not stating into order dt 31.1.2002 in ID NO.30/99 that the service rendered by the petitioner for several years prior to the issue of the fresh appointment order, as directed in the said order of the 2nd respondent should also be taken into consideration an counted in fixing the authority of the petitioner, as illegal arbitrary and unwarranted and consequently direct the 1st respondent to take into consideration the period of service rendered by the petitioner prior to the issuance of the fresh appointment IA NO: 1 OF 2002(WPMP 31407 OF 2002 Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased to expedite the hearing of the above w.p. by fixing an early date Counsel for the Petitioner: 1. R TIMMA REDDY Counsel for the Respondent(S): 1. N SRIHARI ( SC FOR APSRTC ) 2. P VINAYAKA SWAMY The Court made the following: ORDER: On 07.04.2021, 07.07.2025 and 31.07.2025, there was no representation for the petitioner and the matter was posted under the caption ‘for dismissal’. 2. Despite the matter being listed under the caption ‘for dismissal’, today also, there is no representation for the petitioner. This shows that the petitioner is not interested in prosecuting the case. 3. Accordingly, the Writ Petition is dismissed for non-prosecution. There shall be no order as to costs. As a sequel, miscellaneous applications, pending if any, shall stand closed. _____________________________ JUSTICE RAVI CHEEMALAPATI Date: 21st August, 2025 RKS