Research › Search › Judgment

High Court of Andhra Pradesh · body

2025 DAILYLAW 29560 (AP)

Doddi Satyanarayana v. The State of Andhra Pradesh

WP/19854/2018 · 2025-03-25

Venkata Jyothirmai Pratapa

body2025

Judgment text

Extracted from the PDF above. The PDF is authoritative.

APHC010423112018 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3396] TUESDAY, THE TWENTY FIFTH DAY OF MARCH TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE DR JUSTICE VENKATA JYOTHIRMAI PRATAPA WRIT PETITION No.19854/2018 Between: Doddi Satyanarayana ...PETITIONER AND The State Of Andhra Pradesh and Others ...RESPONDENT(S) Counsel for the Petitioner: 1. L V S NAGARAJU Counsel for the Respondent(S): 1. GP FOR COOPERATION (AP) The Court made the following: ORDER: The instant Writ Petition is filed by the Petitioner seeking indulgence of this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for the following relief: “.... to issue an appropriate Writ Order or Direction more particularly one in the nature of writ of Mandamus to declare the action of the respondents in not extending the age of retirement of the petitioner from 58 years to 60 years in terms section 115-D(2) of the A.P.Cooperative Societies act and as per the Provisions of Act 4 of 2014 as illegal, arbitrary and violative of Article 14 of the Constitution of India and contrary to the Resolution of the Managing Committee dated 15.09.2017 and the Resolution No.5 dated 29.09.2017 of the General Body of the 5th respondent Society and consequently, direct the respondents to raise the age of retirement of the petitioner from 58 years to 60 years in terms of the Provisions of Act 4 of 2014 by continuing the petitioner in service with all consequential benefits till the petitioner attain the age of 60 years as per the Resolution of the Managing Committee dated 15092017 and the Resolution No.5 dated 29.09.2017 of the General Body of the 5th respondent Society.” 2. Learned Assistant Government Pleader would submit that the cause in this Writ Petition does not survive and has become infructuous. 3. None represented for the Petitioner. 2 4. In that view, the Writ Petition is dismissed as infructuous. No order as to costs. Pending applications, if any, shall stand closed. DR.JUSTICE VENKATA JYOTHIRMAI PRATAPA Mjl/* 3 HON’BLE DR. JUSTICE VENKATA JYOTHIRMAI PRATAPA Writ Petition No. 16891 of 2018 25.03.2025 Mjl /*