APHC010262782003 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: 22747/2003 Between: 1. BOMMIDI BHEEMA RAO, S/O. LATE RAMBABU, WORKING AS JUNIOR OFFICER, THERMAL POWER PLANT, VISAKHAPATNAM STEEL PLANT, R/O. H.NO. 219-C SECTOR XI ...PETITIONER AND 1. THE ASST GENERAL MANAGER E TPP, DISCIPLINARY AUTHORITY, THERMAL POWER PLANT, VISAKAHPATNAM STEEL PLANT, VISAKHAPATNAM. 2. THE CHIEF SUPERINDENTENT ELECT, THERMAL POWER PLANT, VISAKHAPATNAM STEEL PLANT, VISAKHAPATNAM. 3. THE DIRECTOR OPERATION, VISAKHAPATNAM STEEL PLANT, VISAKHAPATNAM. 4. THE DIRECTOR PERSONAL, VISAKHAPATNAM STEEL PLANT, VISAKHAPATNAM. ...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, one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus, declaring the action of the respondents in placing the petitioner under suspension vide order No. HR/TPP/107644/1684, dt.11-9-2003 as being illegal , unconstitutional and unjust and violative of the principles of natural justice and also the CDA Rules and consequently direct the respondents herein to reinstate the petitioner into service and pay all benefits and to pass such other just and appropriate orders in the matter. IA NO: 1 OF 2003(WPMP 28472 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 suspension order No. WK/TPP/107664/1684 , dated 11-9-2003 of the 1st respondent herein pending disposal of the above W.P. and to pass such other just and appropriate orders in the matter. Counsel for the Petitioner: 1. K A NARASIMHAM Counsel for the Respondent(S): 1. KIRAN KUMAR VADLAMUDI 2. - 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, 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. 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