Research › Search › Judgment

High Court of Andhra Pradesh · body

2025 DAILYLAW 25285 (AP)

V. Madhava, v. The State Of Andhra Pradesh,

WP/16759/2018 · 2025-04-07

Venkata Jyothirmai Pratapa

body2025

Judgment text

Extracted from the PDF above. The PDF is authoritative.

1 APHC010357772018 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3396] MONDAY ,THE SEVENTH DAY OF APRIL TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE DR JUSTICE VENKATA JYOTHIRMAI PRATAPA WRIT PETITION NO: 16759/2018 Between: V. Madhava, and Others ...PETITIONER(S) AND The State Of Andhra Pradesh and Others ...RESPONDENT(S) Counsel for the Petitioner(S): 1. N M KRISHNAIAH Counsel for the Respondent(S): 1. KALYAN CHAKRAVARTHY R 2. GP FOR REVENUE (AP) 3. GP FOR HOUSING (AP) The Court made the following: 2 THE HONOURABLE DR JUSTICE VENKATA JYOTHIRMAI PRATAPA WRIT PETITION NO: 16759 of 2018 ORDER: This Writ Petition is filed under Article 226 of Constitution of India with the following prayer for: “…to issue a Writ Order or Direction more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus declaring the action of the respondents in issuing proceedings for disengagement of the services of petitioners and others as work inspectors in the 4th respondent organization and further action of the 5th respondent in issuing proceedings No.05/2017/SB dated 27.04.2018 dispensing the services of the petitioners as highly and arbitrary and contrary to the directions of this Hon’ble Court and consequently direct the respondents to continue the services of the petitioners as Work Inspectors who have obtained court orders for their continuation in the respondent organization for completion of the sanctioned houses by the State Government and the Central Government and pass…” 2. Heard Sri N.M.Krishnaiah, learned Counsel for the Petitioners and Sri R.Kalyan Chakravarthy, learned Standing Counsel for the respondents. 3. It is represented by the learned Standing Counsel for the respondents that the petitioners are not working in the organization and cause does not survive in this Writ petition. 4. Learned Counsel for the petitioners would submit that recording the same, the petition may be disposed of. 5. Recording the same, the Writ Petition is dismissed, since the relief has become infructuous. No order as to costs. 3 Pending applications, if any, shall stand closed. ____________________________________ Dr. VENKATA JYOTHIRMAI PRATAPA, J Date: 07.04.2025 UPS 4 26 HON’BLE DR. JUSTICE VENKATA JYOTHIRMAI PRATAPA W.P.No.16759 of 2018 Dated.07.04.2025 UPS