APHC010241342003 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3332] FRIDAY,THE TWENTY SECOND DAY OF AUGUST TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE RAVI CHEEMALAPATI WRIT PETITION NO: 21686/2003 Between: 1. R.V.MAYURAPATHI GUPTA, R.V.MAYURAPATHI GUPTA, S/O SATYANARAYANA OCC:UMAMAHESHWARAPURAM, MULLAMURU MANDAL, PRAKASHAM DISTRICT. ...PETITIONER AND 1. A P COOPERATIVE CENTRAL BANK APCOB, M.D. THE MANAGING DIRECTOR, A.P.COOPERATIVE CENTRAL BANK(APCOB), TROOP BAZAR, HYDERABAD. 2. THE DISTRICT COOPERATIVE OFFICER, DCO THE DISTRICT COOPERATIVE OFFICER, OFFICER, ONGOLE, PRAKASHAM DISTRICT. 3. THE GENERAL MANAGER, GM THE GENERAL MANAGER, PRAKASHAM DISTRICTCOOPERATIVE CENTRAL BANK, ONGOLE, PRAKASHAM 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 appropriate writ, order or direction more particularly one in the nature of writ of mandamus, challenging the action of the respondents in not considering the explanation submitted by the petitioner herein, dated 5/6/2003 to the show cause notice dated 28/5/2003 and not concluding the proceedings and referring the matter to the managing committee as per the 2 instructions of the first respondent - apcob to take action against the petitioner vide proceedings of the 3rd respondent in Proc.No.Vigilance/File No.284/2003-04, dated 4/7/2003 is arbitrary, unjust, illegal, without power or authority and consequentially set aside the same directing the respondents to pass appropriate orders IA NO: 1 OF 2003(WPMP 27072 OF 2003 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 suspend the operation of the proceedings of the vigilance 3rd respondent in Proc.No.Vigilance/File No.284/2003-04, dated 4/7/2003 pending disposal of the above writ petition and pass such other order or orders as are deemed fit and proper in the circumstances of the case. Counsel for the Petitioner: 1. K R PRABHAKAR Counsel for the Respondent(S): 1. DADI RADHA KRISHNA 2. ADDL ADVOCATE GENERAL 3. GP FOR COOPERATION The Court made the following: ORDER: On 11.08.2025, learned counsel for the respondents submitted that the cause in the writ petition does not survive and has become infructuous, whereas, learned counsel for the petitioner sought time to get instructions in that regard. 2. Today, learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner has not been in contact with him for a long time and sought time to get instructions. 3 3. Since the matter pertains to the year 2003 and the petitioner has not been pursuing the case through his advocate, it shows that the petitioner has no interest in prosecuting the matter. Hence, the Writ Petition is dismissed for non-prosecution. However, if the petitioner feels that the cause still survives, he can file appropriate application within a period of two (2) months. There shall be no order as to costs. As a sequel, miscellaneous applications, pending if any, shall stand closed. _____________________________ JUSTICE RAVI CHEEMALAPATI Date: 22nd August, 2025 RKS