APHC010397992006 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3504] THURSDAY, THE TWENTIETH DAY OF FEBRUARY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE MAHESWARA RAO KUNCHEAM WRIT PETITION NO: 8968/2006 Between: G. Eswara Rao, E.g.district. ...PETITIONER AND The General Manager Coop Central Bank And 4 Others and Others ...RESPONDENT(S) Counsel for the Petitioner: 1. L V S NAGARAJU Counsel for the Respondent(S): 1. GP FOR LABOUR 2. S SRINIVAS REDDY 3. C V R RUDRA PRASAD 4. GP FOR COOPERATION 5. N SUBBA RAO The Court made the following Order: The Writ Petition is instituted seeking the following main prayer, which is extracted hereunder: “…. to issue a writ or order or direction, more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus by 2 MRK,J W.P.No.8968 of 2006 declaring the award passed by the Industrial Tribunal-cum- Labour Court in I.D.No.225 of 1990 dated 08.09.1994 and also the order of dismissal dated 09.10.1989 issued by the 2nd respondent as illegal, arbitrary and without jurisdiction and consequently direct the respondents to reinstate the petitioner herein forthwith along with full back wages from the date of his termination and continuity of service and pass….” 2. The conspectus of the facts is that, the petitioner had been terminated from the service, way back on 26.12.1983. Thus, the petitioner moved several forums regarding his grievance, wherein I.D.No.225 of 1990 was filed before the Industrial Tribunal Cum Labour Court, Visakhapatnam. The said Tribunal also dismissed the case of the petitioner vide its order, dated 08.09.1994. 3. Questioning the orders, dated 08.09.1994, in I.D.No.225 of 1990, the present Writ Petition has emerged. 4. Apparently, at the time of admission, this Court, had not granted any interim orders. 5. On 27.09.2024, 18.10.2024, 28.10.2024, 14.11.2024 & 26.11.2024, this Court extended reasonable opportunities in favour of the petitioner. At last, the matter was listed on 28.01.2025. Learned counsel for the petitioner as well as the learned counsel for the respondents jointly reported that the petitioner has expired. Thus, this Court, granted one more opportunity in favour of the petitioner and posted to today under the caption ‘For Dismissal’. 6. Today, when the case was listed under the caption ‘For Dismissal’, there is no representation for the petitioner. 3 MRK,J W.P.No.8968 of 2006 7. Apparently, no steps have been taken by the petitioner to file L.R. petitions etc. 8. Hence, this Court has no option except closing this Writ Petition as Abated. 9. Accordingly, this Writ Petition is closed as abated. There shall be no order as to costs. As a sequel, interlocutory applications pending, if any shall stand closed. ______________________________ MAHESWARA RAO KUNCHEAM, J Date: 20.02.2025 KPV 4 MRK,J W.P.No.8968 of 2006 156 THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE MAHESWARA RAO KUNCHEAM WRIT PETITION No:8968 of 2006 20.02.2025 KPV