APHC010235512005 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3332] FRIDAY,THE FOURTH DAY OF JULY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE RAVI CHEEMALAPATI WRIT PETITION NO: 14788/2005 Between: 1. A.S.S. PRAKASA RAO, E.G.DISTRICT., S/O. SUBBA RAO LOWER DIVISION CLERK LOWER SILERU HYDRO ELECTRIC SCHEME (LSHES) DONKARAI, A.P.GENCO LTD., EAST GODAVARI DISTRICT. ...PETITIONER AND 1. THE MANAGING DIRECTOR HYD AND 2 OTHERS, A.P.POWER GENERATION CORPORATION LTD., VIDYUTHSOUDHA HYDERABAD-82. 2. THE GENERAL MANAGER ADM, A.P.GENCO LTD., VIDYUTHSOUDHA HYDEARBAD-82. 3. THE SUPERINTENDING ENGINEER CIVIL OM, MOTHUGUDEM, KHAMMAM DISTRICT. ...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 an order or writ one in the nature of writ of mandamus, declaring the action of the 1st respondent in not considering the disposing of the petitioners representation dated 23-6-2004,9-3-2005 and 5-4-2005, for counting of service from the date of original appointment i.e., 25-11-1968 and accordingly for granting all the promotional benefits, as arbitrary, illegal and violative of Article 14, 16 and 21 of the Constitution of India, and consequently direct the 1st respondent to promote the petitioner by considering the representation dated 23-6-2004, 9-3-2005 and 5-4-2005 and pass such other orders as may be just. IA NO: 1 OF 2005(WPMP 18780 OF 2005 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 direct the 1st respondent to consider the petitioners representation dated 23-6-2004,9-3-2005 and 5-4-2005, pending disposal of the above writ petition and pass such other orders as may be just. Counsel for the Petitioner: 1. CHANDRAIAH SUNKARA Counsel for the Respondent(S): 1. Nagaraju Naguru,Standing Counsel For APGENCO 2. P R BALARAMI REDDY(SC FOR AP TRANSCO) The Court made the following order: On the representation made that the petitioner’s counsel was no more, this Court ordered notice to the petitioner. The endorsement made by the Registry shows that that notice sent to the petitioner was returned with endorsement ‘deceased’. The learned counsel for the respondents submitted that the petitioner submitted representation similar to the representation referred in the writ petition and they were all rejected. As the petitioner is no more and no steps were taken to bring the LR’s of the sole petitioner on record, the writ petition is dismissed as abated. No costs. Miscellaneous applications, pending if any shall stand closed. ______________________ RAVI CHEEMALAPATI, J BRS