APHC010005282016 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) FRIDAY,THE EIGHTEENTH DAY OF JULY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE MAHESWARA RAO KUNCHEAM WRIT PETITION NO: 34965 OF 2016 Between: Sri.K.B. Jagan Mohan,, S/o. Sundar Rao, Aged 58 years, Occ: Regional Manager in-charge, AP State Agro Industries Development Corporation Ltd., Regional Office, Thotapalem Road, 0pp. to RTC Complex, Vizianagaram, Andhra Pradesh. ...Petitioner AND 1. A P State Agro Industries Development Corporation Ltd, Hermitage Office Complex, Hill Fort Road, Hyderabad - 2. The Regional Manager, A.P. State Agro Industries Development Corporation Ltd., Regional Office, Thotapalem Road, Off: RTC Complex, Vizianagaram. Andhra Pradesh. 3. State of Andhra Pradesh, Agriculture and Cooperation Department Rep. by its Special Chief Secretary to Govt. (Agri!) A.P. Secretariat, Hyderabad. ...Respondents Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed therewith, the High Court may be pleased to issue appropriate Writ, Order or direction more particularly one in the nature of Writ of MANDAMUS declaring the action of the Respondent No.1 issuing notice of retirement vide No. Ref. No. Pers/M/(P&A) /JA/937/09, dt. 05.11.2015 in fixing date of retirement from service as 31.10.2016 by considering age of retirement as 58 years as arbitrary, illegal, unconstitutional and violative of G.O.Ms.No. 147 dated 30.06.2014 of the 3rd respondent and as adopted by 1st respondent through its board resolution passed in its 261st meeting dated 18.05.2015 and consequently by setting aside the notice No. Ref. No. Pers/M/(P&A) /JA/937/09, dt. 05.11.2015, direct the 1St and 2nd Respondents to continue the petitioner in service till the age of 60 years and pass such other order or orders as this Hon'ble Court deems fit and the circumstances of the case. in proper in lA NO: 1 OF 2016fWPMP 43099 OF 2016 Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased to direct the 1st and 2nd Respondents to continue the petitioner in service as Regional Manager in-charge, by suspending the proceedings vide No. Ref. No. Pers/M/(P&A) /JA1937/09, dt. 05.11.2015. Counsel for the Petitioner: SRI CH B R P SEKHAR Counsel for the Respondent Nos.1 & 2: SRI BANDA PRASADA RAO (SC FOR TSAIDC) Counsel for the Respondent No.3: GP FOR COOPERATION (AP) The Court made the following order: 1 APHC010005282016 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3504] FRIDAY. THE EIGHTEENTH DAY OF JULY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE MAHESWARA RAO KUNCHEAM WRIT PETITION NO: 34965/2016 Between; ...PETITIONER Sri.k.b. Jagan Mohan AND ...RESPONDENT(S) A P State Agro Industries Development Corporation Ltd and Others Counsel for the Petitioner: 1.CH B R P SEKHAR Counsel for the Respondent(S): 1.GP FOR COOPERATION (AP) 2. BANDA PRASADA RAO(SC FOR TSAIDC) The Court Made the Following Order:- This Writ Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India is filed for the following relief: "to issue appropriate Writ Order or direction more particularly one in the nature of Writ of MANDAMUS declaring the action of the Respondent No 1 in issuing notice of retirement vide No Ref No Pers/M/PA /JA/937/09 dt.05.11.2015 in fixing date of retirement , -1 2 from service as 31.10.2016 by considering age of retirement as 58 years as unconstitutional and violative of G.O.Ms.No.147 dated 30.06.2014 of the 3rd respondent and as adopted by 1st respondent through its board resolution passed in its 261st meeting dated 18.05/2015 and conseguently by setting aside the notice No Ref No Pers/M/PA /JA/937/09 dt.05.11.2015 direct the ISt and 2nd Respondents to continue the petitioner in service till the age of 60 years and to pass..." Sri Gummadavalli Vamsi, learned counsel representing Sri Ch.B.R.P.Sekhar, learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that in view of the subsequent events taken place in the lis, the cause in the Writ Petition does not survive for further adjudication and the Writ Petition has become infructuous. arbitrary illegal 2. Recording the submission made by learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner, 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. Sd/- G. HELA NAIDU assistant registrar //TRUE COPY// SECTION^FICER To, 1. One CC to Sri. CH B R P Sekhar, Advocate [OPUC] GP For Cooperation (AP), High Court of Andhra 2. Two CCs to Pradesh [OUT] 3. One CC to Sri. Banda Prasada Rao(SC FOR TSAIDC), Advocate [OPUC] 4. Two CD Copies. AL HIGH COURT DATED:18/07/2025 ORDER WP NO. 34965 OF 2016 a 0 3 SEP 2025 IS ntSectio «o m. DISMISSING THE W.P. AS INFRUCTUOUS, WITHOUT COSTS