APHC010426272007 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH (Special Original Jurisdiction) FRIDAY ,THE SEVENTH DAY OF MARCH TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE RAVI CHEEMALAPATI WRIT PETITION NO: 17579/2007 Between: Smt.N.suryakantham,srikakulam Dist & 9 Others, and Others The Rural Development Authotity Hyd 2 Others and Others Counsel for the Petitioner(S): 1. S A V RATNAM Counsel for the Respondent(S): 1. GP FOR PANCHAYAT RAJ RURAL DEV 2. GP FOR SOCIAL WELFARE The Court made the following: ORDER Learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that the petitioners are not responding and sought time. 2. Whereas, the learned Standing Counsel for District Rural Development Agency by placing on record the written instructions submitted IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) FRIDAY ,THE SEVENTH DAY OF MARCH TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE RAVI CHEEMALAPATI WRIT PETITION NO: 17579/2007 .suryakantham,srikakulam Dist & 9 Others, and ...PETITIONER(S) AND The Rural Development Authotity Hyd 2 Others and ...RESPONDENT(S) Counsel for the Petitioner(S): Counsel for the Respondent(S): PANCHAYAT RAJ RURAL DEV GP FOR SOCIAL WELFARE The Court made the following: Learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that the petitioners are not responding and sought time. he learned Standing Counsel for District Rural Development Agency by placing on record the written instructions submitted IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH [3332] THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE RAVI CHEEMALAPATI ...PETITIONER(S) ...RESPONDENT(S) Learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that the petitioners are he learned Standing Counsel for District Rural Development Agency by placing on record the written instructions submitted that petitioner no.1 died and except the petitioner nos. 2 & 6, other petitioners retired from service and as per the Service Registers, the petitioners were provided Special Grade Increments as per their eligibility and retired employees have also been provided retirement benefits completely and hence nothing survives for adjudication in this writ petition and the same became infructuous. 3. The submission made by learned counsel for the petitioners that the petitioners are not responding coupled with the submission made by the learned Standing Counsel would indicate that cause in this writ petition rendered infructuous and hence there is no purpose in keeping this writ petition pending. 4. Accordingly, this writ petition is dismissed as infructuous. There shall be no order as to costs. Pending miscellaneous applications, if any, shall stand closed. ___________________________ JUSTICE RAVI CHEEMALAPATI RR