Research › Search › Judgment

High Court of Andhra Pradesh · body

2025 DAILYLAW 23985 (AP)

K.Veera Swamy v. The State of Andhra Pradesh,

WP/15605/2018 · 2025-03-28

Venkata Jyothirmai Pratapa

body2025

Judgment text

Extracted from the PDF above. The PDF is authoritative.

APHC010339212018 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3396] FRIDAY, THE TWENTY EIGHTH DAY OF MARCH TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE DR. JUSTICE VENKATA JYOTHIRMAI PRATAPA WRIT PETITION NO: 15605/2018 Between: 1. K.VEERA SWAMY, S/O RAJA RAO, AGED 61 YEARS, RETIRED DEPUTY EXECUTIVE ENGINEER, A.P.STATE HOUSING CORPORATION, R/O MADDIPADU VILLAGE AND MANDAL, PRAKASAM DISTRICT, ANDHRA PRADESH. ...PETITIONER AND 1. THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH, REP. BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY, HOUSING DEPARTMENT, SECRETARIAT, VELAGAPUDI, GUNTUR DISTRICT, ANDHRA PRADESH. 2. THE A P STATE HOUSING CORPORATION LIMITED, REP. BY ITS MANAGING DIRECTOR, SP RIVER VIEW BUILDING, NEAR MANIPAL HOSPITAL, TADEPALLI-522 501, AMARAVATHI, GUNTUR DISTRICT, ANDHRA PRADESH. ...RESPONDENT(S): Counsel for the Petitioner: 1. SRINIVASA RAO MADIRAJU Counsel for the Respondent(S): 1. KALYAN CHAKRAVARTHY R SD for AP State Housing Corp 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, a) declaring that the action of the respondents in issuing Proc.No.11833/VI/KRL/2008, dt.14-3-2018 is illegal arbitrary and discriminatory violating Article 14 and 16 of the constitution of India, apart from the same issued without any power, jurisdiction and authority, b) declare, that the respondents shall release the retiremental benefits payable to the petitioner.” 2 2. When the matter is taken up for hearing, Sri Madiraju Srinivasa Rao, learned counsel for the Petitioner would submit that, no further orders are required in this matter and the petition may be closed. 3. Sri R.Kalyan Chakravarthy, learned Standing Counsel for Respondents would submit that the Court may pass appropriate orders. 4. Considering the submissions made, the Writ Petition is closed. 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:28.03.2025 Dinesh 3 HON’BLE DR. JUSTICE VENKATA JYOTHIRMAI PRATAPA W.P.No.15605 of 2018 Dt.28.03.2025 Dinesh