Research › Search › Judgment

High Court of Andhra Pradesh · body

2025 DAILYLAW 31932 (AP)

Karri Venkatarao v. The Commissioner,

WP/10889/2012 · 2025-04-03

K Manmadha Rao

body2025

Judgment text

Extracted from the PDF above. The PDF is authoritative.

APHC010467772012 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3310] THURSDAY ,THE THIRD DAY OF APRIL TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE DR JUSTICE K MANMADHA RAO WRIT PETITION NO: 10889/2012 Between: Karri Venkatarao ...PETITIONER AND The Commissioner and Others ...RESPONDENT(S) Counsel for the Petitioner: 1. M VISWANADHAM Counsel for the Respondent(S): 1. V T M PRASAD SC FOR ENDOWNMENTS 2. KOTESWARA RAO KAPPERA SC For Endowments 3. GP FOR ENDOWMENTS The Court made the following: ORDER: The Writ Petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, seeking the following relief: “….to issue any appropriate Writ Order or direction preferably a Writ in the nature of Writ of Mandamus declaring the Proceedings in RC.No.J1/736/2012 dt 27.3.2012 issued by the 2nd and 3rd respondents as being illegal, arbitrary without jurisdiction contrary to proceedings in Rc.No.A2/5926/2011 dt 28.5.2011 and violative of Art 14 of the Constitution of India and consequently set aside the same...” 2. As seen from the proceeding sheet, this Court on 06.03.2025 directed the Registry to issue notice to the petitioner. Accordingly, notice was issued to the petitioner and the same was returned unserved with an endorsement “Addressee expired”. 3. On hearing, Mr Kappera Koteswara Rao, learned Standing Counsel appearing for Respondent Nos.2 and 3 submits that during pendency of the Writ Petition, petitioner has filed a representation before the 2nd respondent requesting to release the gratuity and pension. To that effect, a bill was passed and an amount of Rs.4,20,000/- was paid. A copy of the voucher and the representation was filed before this Court and the same was placed on record. 4. As the petitioner and the petitioner counsel died, in the opinion of this Court it is not possible to proceed further in this matter. 5. Hence, the Writ Petition is closed. However, liberty is given to the petitioner to take appropriate legal remedies available under law if he has any further grievance with regard to pension and salary benefits. There shall be no order as to costs. As a sequel, miscellaneous applications pending, if any, shall stand closed. _________________________ DR. K. MANMADHA RAO, J. Dated : 03.04.2025 TM THE HON’BLE DR. JUSTICE K. MANMADHA RAO W.P.No.10889 of 2012 Date: 03.04.2025 TM