1 APHC010318962006 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3504] FRIDAY, THE TWENTY FOURTH DAY OF JANUARY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE MAHESWARA RAO KUNCHEAM WRIT PETITION NO: 17083/2006 Between: Mohd. Hussain, Kadapa District ...PETITIONER AND Andhra Pradesh State Road Transport Hyd Another and Others ...RESPONDENT(S) Counsel for the Petitioner: 1. P VINAYAKA SWAMY 2. A K JAYAPRAKASH RAO Counsel for the Respondent(S): 1. ARAVALA RAMA RAO(SC FOR APSRTC KKAC) The Court Made the Following Order:- This Writ Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India is filed for the following relief: “to call for the records from the respondents and issue an appropriate Writ Order or Direction particularly one 2 in the nature of Writ of Mandamus declaring that the order passed by the 2nd respondent in proceedings No PA/11412/05-ED(C&N) dated 19.6.2006, confirmed by the 1st respondent by proceedings No EC/197/2006- PD dated 30.7.2006 signed on 02.8.2006, received on 12.8.2006 reverting the petitioner from the post of Depot Manager to the post of Assistant Engineer Mechanical for a period of one year as illegal unjust contrary to law arbitrary not bonafide and violative of Articles 14, 16 and 21 of the constitution of India and grant all consequential benefits and pass such other order or orders as this deemed fit and pass...” 2. There was no representation on behalf of the petitioner on the last two occasions i.e. on 02.01.2025 and 23.01.2025. On 23.01.2025, the matter was directed to be listed to today under the caption “For dismissal”. Even today, when the matter is called, there is no representation on behalf of the petitioner. 3. The Writ Petition is filed in the year 2006. At the time of filing of the present Writ Petition, the age of the petitioner is 55 years. In view of efflux of time, the petitioner would attain the age of superannuation, therefore, the cause in the Writ Petition does not survive for further adjudication and the Writ Petition has become infructuous. 4. In that view of the matter, the Writ Petition is dismissed as infructuous. There shall be no orders as to costs. 3 As a sequel thereto, the miscellaneous petitions, if any, pending in this Writ Petition shall stand closed. _____________________________ MAHESWARA RAO KUNCHEAM,J 24.01.2025. ASR 4 THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE MAHESWARA RAO KUNCHEAM WRIT PETITION NO.17083 of 2006 24.01.2025 ASR