Yakasiri Sudhakar , v. The State of Andhra Pradesh,
WP/16840/2018 · 2025-04-07
Venkata Jyothirmai Pratapa
body2025
DailyLaw.ai
[ 2025 DAILYLAW 25605 (AP) · dailylaw.ai ]
DailyLaw.ai
[ 2025 DAILYLAW 25605 (AP) · dailylaw.ai ]
Judgment text
Extracted from the PDF above. The PDF is authoritative.
1
APHC010361742018
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: 16840/2018 Between: Yakasiri Sudhakar, and Others ...PETITIONER(S) AND The State Of Andhra Pradesh and Others ...RESPONDENT(S) Counsel for the Petitioner(S):
1. K MOHAN RAMI REDDY Counsel for the Respondent(S):
1. KALYAN CHAKRAVARTHY R
2. GP FOR HOUSING (AP) The Court made the following:
2
THE HONOURABLE DR JUSTICE VENKATA JYOTHIRMAI PRATAPA WRIT PETITION NO: 16840 of 2018
ORDER:
This Writ Petition is filed under Article 226 of Constitution of India with the following prayer for:
“…to issue an appropriate Writ Order or Direction more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus to declare the impugned order passed by the 5th respondent in Procs. No.05/2017/SB dated 27.04.2018 dispensed the services of the petitioners on the ground that they are not having technical qualifications basing on the letter of the 2nd respondent dated 14.04.2018 bearing Lr.No.A5/1205/OWSI/2018 contrary to his own circular dated 05.12.2016 bearing No. A5/4833/2017/Gruha Mitra, being illegal, arbitrary, unilateral and unconstitutional and consequently set aside the same and to grant…”
2. Heard Sri K. Mohan Rami Reddy, 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
24 HON’BLE DR. JUSTICE VENKATA JYOTHIRMAI PRATAPA
W.P.No.16840 of 2018
Dated.07.04.2025
UPS