1 APHC010291782017 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3504] FRIDAY, THE EIGHTEENTH DAY OF JULY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE MAHESWARA RAO KUNCHEAM WRIT PETITION NO: 23963/2017 Between: G.baia Parmeshwara Rao S/o. G.v.narayana Rao ...PETITIONER AND Union Of India Represented By Its Secretary Ministry and Others ...RESPONDENT(S) Counsel for the Petitioner: 1. RAVI SHANKAR JANDHYALA Counsel for the Respondent(S): 1. DEPUTY SOLICITOR GENERAL OF INDIA 2. V UMA DEVI 3. B JITHENDER (SC FOR CENTRAL GOVT. COUNSEL) 4. VIRUPAKSHA DATTATREYA GOUDA (SC FOR VISAKHAPATNAM PORT AUTHORITY) The Court Made the Following Order:- This Writ Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India is filed for the following relief: “to issue an Order Direction or a Writ more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus directing the 2 Visakhapatnam Port Trust to continue the petitioner beyond 31 07 2017 in the same terms and conditions till the final decision is taken by the concerned authorities with regard to final declaration on extension of age of superannuation for Doctors working in the respondent organization and to pass...” 2. On 11.07.2025, there was no representation for the petitioner. Today, when the matter is called, Sri Kedarnath Chowdary, learned counsel representing Sri Ravi Shankar, learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the client has taken no objection from them. 3. On the other hand, Sri Vivekananda Virupaksha, learned counsel representing Sri Virupaksha Dattatreya Gowda, learned standing counsel for the respondent No.3 submits that the petitioner was retired from service on 31.07.2017 on attaining the age of superannuation. To that effect, the proceeding issued by Chief Medical Officer, Visakhapatnam Port Trust, vide Office Order No.IMED/E-II/LPC/GBPR/31/2017/554, dated 04.05.2017, is placed before this Court. 4. As seen from the material available on record, it is evident that, even as per the version of the writ petitioner also, he was aged about 59 years at the time of filing the writ petition. In fact, the 3 petitioner sought for continuation of his services upto the age of 65 years. However, due to efflux of time, petitioner would have already crossed 65 years by 2023 and the prayer sought by the petitioner would not survive for consideration. 5. In these circumstances, this Court is of the view that merely keeping the writ petition pending would yield 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. There shall be no order as to costs. As a sequel thereto, the miscellaneous petitions, if any, pending in this Writ Petition shall stand closed. _____________________________ MAHESWARA RAO KUNCHEAM,J 18.07.2025. ASR 4 THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE MAHESWARA RAO KUNCHEAM WRIT PETITION NO.23963 of 2017 18.07.2025 ASR