APHC010428942002 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3332] THURSDAY,THE FOURTH DAY OF SEPTEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE RAVI CHEEMALAPATI WRIT PETITION NO: 23880/2002 Between: 1. ADONI COTTON MILLS (NTC) VRS 1996 EMPLOYEES ASSOCIATION, REP. BY ITS PRESIDENT K.NARASANNA, ADONI, KURNOOL DISTRICT. ...PETITIONER AND 1. THE CHAIRMANCUMMANAGING DIRECTOR, NATIONAL TEXTILES CORPORATION, NEW DELHI. 2. THE CHAIRMANCUMMANAGING DIRECTOR, NATIONAL TEXTILES CORPORATION, APLL & MILLS LIMITED, NAGAPPA MASION, K.H.ROAD, SHANTINAGAR, 3. THE GENERAL MANAGER, ADONI COTTON MILLS UNIT OF NTC (APKK & MILLS LIMITED) ADONI, KURNOOL DISTRICT. ...RESPONDENT(S): Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed therewith, the High Court may be pleased to pass an order or direction or writ more specifically in the nature of Writ of Mandamus, to declare the action of the respondents in not extending the benefit of Class 3.1.1 and 3.1.2 of MVRS-2002 to the members of the Petitioner, which was accrued as per Act, is arbitrary, illegal and discriminatory and violative of Art.14 & 16 of Constitution of India after setting aside the orders of the respondents passed in proceedings No.GM/ACM/PERS/571, dated 12-8-2002 and consequently direct the respondents to extend the benefits of class 3.1.1. and 3.1.2. of MRS-2002 to the Petitioners. IA NO: 1 OF 2002(WPMP 29973 OF 2002 Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased to direct the respondents not to sell the machinery of the Adoni Cotton Mill, Adoni, Kurnool District to any 3rd party. Counsel for the Petitioner: 1. K SIVA REDDY Counsel for the Respondent(S): 1. K ANNAPURNA REDDY The Court made the following: ORDER: On 09.04.2021, 07.07.2025 and 07.08.2025, there was no representation for the petitioner and the matter was posted under the caption ‘for dismissal’. 2. Despite the matter being listed under the caption ‘for dismissal’, today also, there is no representation for the petitioner. This shows that the petitioner is not interested in prosecuting the case. 3. Accordingly, the Writ Petition is dismissed for non-prosecution. There shall be no order as to costs. As a sequel, miscellaneous applications, pending if any, shall stand closed. _____________________________ JUSTICE RAVI CHEEMALAPATI Date: 04th September, 2025 RKS