1 APHC010398452016 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3504] MONDAY, THE TWENTY FIRST DAY OF JULY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE MAHESWARA RAO KUNCHEAM WRIT PETITION NO: 19417/2016 Between: Ravindranath Tagore ...PETITIONER AND Prl Secy Coop Dept Hyd 2 Others and Others ...RESPONDENT(S) Counsel for the Petitioner: 1. P BHAVANA RAO Counsel for the Respondent(S): 1. GP FOR COOPERATION (AP) 2. A RAJENDRA BABU 3. V KISHORE 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 a writ or order or direction in the nature of writ of mandamus directing the respondents to forbear from enforcing the impugned Memo No Estt/551/201617 dated 02.06.2016 issued by the Chief Executive Officer 2 of the Krishna District Cooperative Central Bank Ltd Machilipatnam Krishna District Andhra Pradesh by holding the same to be illegal and invalid and with a consequential direction to direct the respondents to continue petitioner in service till the completion of 60 years with all consequential benefits and to pass...” 2. The sum and substance in the present lis is that the petitioner is seeking continuation of his service upto the age of 60 years. 3. Today, when the matter is taken up for hearing, there is no representation on behalf of the petitioner. 4. Sri A. Rajendra Babu, learned Standing Counsel for respondent societies would submit that the writ petitioner retired from the service on 31.07.2016. Thereafter, on 25.11.2016, the respondent/bank has also paid all terminal benefits to him. Therefore, the cause in the writ petition does not survive for further adjudication. 5. As seen from the material available on record, it is evident that the petitioner was aged about 58 years at the time of filing the writ petition. In fact, the petitioner sought for continuation of his services upto the age of 60 years. However, due to efflux of time, petitioner would have already crossed 65 years as on today and the prayer sought by the petitioner would not survive for consideration. 6. In these circumstances, this Court is of the view that merely keeping the writ petition pending would yield no useful purpose. Therefore, the writ petition is closed. 3 7. 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 thereto, the miscellaneous petitions, if any, pending in this Writ Petition shall stand closed. _____________________________ MAHESWARA RAO KUNCHEAM,J 21.07.2025. Asr 4 THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE MAHESWARA RAO KUNCHEAM WRIT PETITION NO.19417 of 2016 21.07.2025 Asr