APHC010334492018 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3396] TUESDAY, THE ELEVENTH DAY OF MARCH TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE DR JUSTICE VENKATA JYOTHIRMAI PRATAPA WRIT PETITION NO: 15330/2018 Between: P. VEERA VENKATA NAGA PRASAD, S/O. RAMA RAO, AGED ABOUT 33 YEARS, CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER (PAID SECRETARY), CHINTALAMADUGUPALLY PRIMARY AGRICULTURAL COOOPERATIVE SOCIETY, NEAR ANDHRA BANK, VEMPALLI, YSR KADAPA DISTRICT. ...PETITIONER AND 1. PRL SECY AGRL DEPT STATE OF A P, THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH, REPRESENTED BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY, AGRICULTURE AND COOPERATION DEPARTMENT, SECRETARIAT BUILDINGS, VELAGAPUDI, GUNTUR. 2. THE COMMISSIONER AND REGISTRAR OF COOPERATIVE SOCIETIES, GOVERNMENT OF ANDHRA PRADESH, SKYLARK TOWERS, D.NO.2-16- 83, 11TH LINE, SYAMALA NAGAR, GUNTUR. 3. THE DISTRICT COOPERATIVE OFFICER, KADAPA, YSR KADAPA DISTRICT. 4. CHINTALAMADUGUPALLY PRIMARY AGRICULTURAL COOPERATIVE SOCIETY, NEAR ANDHRA PRADESH, VEMPALLY, YSR KADAPA DISTRICT, REP. BY ITS PRESIDENT. ...RESPONDENT(S): Counsel for the Petitioner: 1. HEMANTH KUMAR VEMURI Counsel for the Respondent(S): 1. D KODANDARAMI REDDY The Court made the following: ORDER: This Writ Petition is filed under Article 226 of Constitution of India with the following prayer for: “.... a writ of Mandamus, declaring the orders of the 4th respondent society dt. 21-5-2016 keeping the petitioner under suspension and not reviewing the said suspension and also not paying the subsistence allowance as wholly illegal, arbitrary, violative of Article 14, 16 and 21 of the Constitution of India and consequently declare 2 that the petitioner is entitled to be reinstated into service with all consequential benefits.” 2. When the matter is taken up for hearing, learned counsel for Respondent No.4 would submit that the Petitioner was removed from services even by the year 2016 and by suppressing the said fact, the present writ petition is filed. It is further submitted that, no further orders are required in this matter since the prayer in the present writ petition is regarding subsistence allowance during the period of suspension which was turned into removal of the Petitioner within a period of four months from the date of suspension. Learned counsel has placed on record the photocopy of the resolution passed by Respondent No.4 to that effect that the Petitioner was removed even prior to the date of filing of the present writ petition. 3. Sri M.Eswar, learned counsel representing Sri V.Hemanth Kumar, learned counsel for the Petitioner would submit that, though the Respondents have mentioned in the counter, the order was not served on the Petitioner and opportunity may be given to the Petitioner to challenge the said order and the petition may be disposed of. 4. Considering the submissions made, the Writ Petition is disposed of. However, the Petitioner is at liberty to challenge the order of his removal according to governing rules and law. There shall be no order as to costs. As a sequel thereto, miscellaneous petitions, if any, pending shall stand closed. ________________________________________ Dr.JUSTICE VENKATA JYOTHIRMAI PRATAPA Date:11.03.2025 Dinesh 3 HON’BLE DR. JUSTICE VENKATA JYOTHIRMAI PRATAPA W.P.No.15330 of 2018 Dt.11.03.2025 Dinesh