APHC010308122007 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3332] MONDAY,THE FIFTEENTH DAY OF SEPTEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE RAVI CHEEMALAPATI WRIT PETITION NO: 26883/2007 Between: 1. B. REDDAPPA, KADAPA DISTRICT, S/O. MURUGANNA, R/O. BADVEL, WORKING AS WORK INSPECTOR (HOUSING) BADVEL, KADAPA DISTRICT. ...PETITIONER AND 1. THE MANAGING DIRECTOR HYD 2 OTHERS, A.P.STATE HOUSING CORPORATION LIMITED, URDU HALL LANE, HIMAYATNAGAR, HYDERABAD. 2. THE DISTRICT MANAGER, A.P.STATE HOUSING CORPORATION LIMITED, CHITTOOR, CHITTOOR DISTRICT. 3. THE DISTRICT MANAGER, A.P.STATE HOUSING CORPORATION LIMITED, KADAPA, KADAPA 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 toto issue a writ, order or direction more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Certiorari by calling the entire records pertains to the impugned order vide Proc. No. Vig.(3)/1289/APHCL/CTR/2007 dated 15-11-2007 of the 1st respondent, initiating departmental proceedings under Rule 20 of A.P. Civil Services (CC&A) Rules, 1991 after 15 years of considerable lapse of time on the alleged allegations mentioned in the articles of charges along with the impugned order are bad, illegal, arbitrary, ultra virus, irrational, unfair and th said impugned proceedings itself of Doctrine of delay and laches in order to initiate the departmental disciplinary proceedings without conducting any enquiry is also contrary to A.P. Civil Services (CC&A) rules, 1971 and consequently quash the impugned proceedings vide Proc.NO. vig(3)/1289/APHCL/CTR/2007 dated 15-11-2007 and pass IA NO: 1 OF 2007(WPMP 35103 OF 2007 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 proceedings of the 1st respondent Proc.NO. vig(3)/1289/APHCL/CTR/2007 dated 15-11-2007 pending writ petition and pass Counsel for the Petitioner: 1. V SURENDRA REDDY Counsel for the Respondent(S): 1. E V JAGANNADHA RAO (SC FOR AP STATE HOUSEING COOP LTD) The Court made the following: ORDER: Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner is not in contact with him for a long time and he has no instructions in the matter, as such, prayed to pass appropriate orders. 2. Since the matter pertains to the year 2007, the party should invariable be in contact with his advocate, however, in the present case, the petitioner had not been pursuing the case through his advocate, it shows that the petitioner had no interest in prosecuting the matter. Hence, the Writ Petition is liable to be dismissed. 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: 15th September, 2025 RKS