APHC010279282017 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3504] FRIDAY,THE ELEVENTH DAY OF JULY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE MAHESWARA RAO KUNCHEAM WRIT PETITION NO: 29904/2017 Between: K.venkateshwara Rao, ...PETITIONER AND The State Of A P and Others ...RESPONDENT(S) Counsel for the Petitioner: 1. Y V SRINIVASAN Counsel for the Respondent(S): 1. GP FOR COOPERATION (AP) 2. V KISHORE The Court made the following ORDER: The writ petition is filed seeking writ of mandamus, praying the following main relief:- “……declaring the action of the third respondent in relieving the petitioner from service on 31.05.2017, without considering the representation of the petitioner, contrary to Rule 28(6) of the A.P. Cooperative Societies Rules, 1964, as illegal and arbitrary and consequently direct the third respondent to take the petitioner into service in pursuance of resolution No.6, dated 29.06.2017, of the managing committee of the third respondent enhancing the age of superannuation of its employees from 58 years to 60 years, by treating the date of retirement of the petitioner as 30.06.2017……” 2 2. The sum and substance in the present lis is that the petitioner is seeking enhancement of superannuation age from 58 years to 60 years in the respondents Corporation. 3. When the matter is called, there is no representation for the petitioner. 4. On the other hand, learned Assistant Government Pleader for Cooperation submits that the petitioner retired from service on 31.05.2017 itself by receiving all terminal benefits and the writ petition renders infructuous. 4. Apparently, the writ petition was instituted way back in the year 2017, when the petitioner was aged about 58 years. More than seven years have elapsed from the date of institution of the lis and as on today, the petitioner’s age would be approximately 65 years. Since the petitioner would have already attained age of superannuation, the relief sought in the writ petition does not survive for adjudication. 5. In these circumstances and in the absence of representation from the petitioner side, this Court is of the view that merely keeping the writ petition pending would serve no useful purpose. Therefore, the writ petition is closed. 6. However, this order will not preclude the petitioner from taking recourse to law as permissible, if so advised. 3 There shall be no order as to costs. As a sequel, all pending applications shall stand closed. _______________________________ JUSTICE MAHESWARA RAO KUNCHEAM Date: 11.07.2025 GVK 4 283 THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE MAHESWARA RAO KUNCHEAM WRIT PETITION No.29904 of 2017 Date: 11.07.2025 GVK