APHC010385982017 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3504] FRIDAY,THE TWENTY FIFTH DAY OF JULY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE MAHESWARA RAO KUNCHEAM WRIT PETITION NO: 18910/2017 Between: K. Venkata Jayaram, S/o Muneeswara Rao, ...PETITIONER AND The State Of Andhra Pradesh and Others ...RESPONDENT(S) Counsel for the Petitioner: 1. K JAYASREE Counsel for the Respondent(S): 1. AST SOL GEN 2. GP FOR CIVIL SUPPLIES (AP) The Court made the following ORDER: The writ petition is filed seeking indulgence of this Court, praying the following main relief:- “……i) to declare that the Board of Directors Resolution of Andhra Pradesh State Civil Supplies Corporation Limited Item No.189 (5), dated 8.12.2015 keeping the Board of Directors Resolution No.185 (7) in abeyance is illegal, arbitrary and unjust and consequently set aside the same ii) declare that the petitioner is entitled to continue in service till he attains the age superannuation of 60 years in terms of Board of Directors Resolution of Andhra Pradesh State Civil Supplies Corporation Limited Item No.185 (7), dated 5.1.2015 and in terms of Section 3 of the A.P. Public Employees (Regulation of Age of Superannuation) (Amendment) Act, 2014 and (iii) consequently direct the respondents to continue the petitioner in service till she 2 attains the age of superannuation of 60 years with all consequential benefits and pass……” 2. The sum and substance in the present lis is that the petitioner is seeking continuation of his service in the respondents Corporation upto the superannuation age of 60 years. 3. When the matter is called today, there is no representation for the petitioner, nor for the respondents. 4. As seen from the material on record, it is evident that the writ petition was instituted way back in the year 2017, when the petitioner was aged about 58 years and more than eight years have elapsed from the date of institution of the lis. Since the petitioner would have already attained age of 60 years by 2019, the relief sought in the writ petition does not survive for further adjudication. 5. In these circumstances and in the absence of representation from either side, this Court is of the view that merely keeping the writ petition pending would serve no useful purpose. Therefore, the writ petition is closed. 6. However, this order will not preclude the petitioner from taking recourse to law as permissible, if so advised. There shall be no order as to costs. As a sequel, all pending applications shall stand closed. _______________________________ JUSTICE MAHESWARA RAO KUNCHEAM Date: 25.07.2025 GVK 3 63 THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE MAHESWARA RAO KUNCHEAM WRIT PETITION No.18910 of 2017 Date: 25.07.2025 GVK