APHC010473882017 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3504] FRIDAY,THE TWENTY FIFTH DAY OF JULY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE MAHESWARA RAO KUNCHEAM WRIT PETITION NO: 19697/2017 Between: T. Sudhakar Sharma, Vizianagaram ...PETITIONER AND Prl Secretary Civil Supplies Dept Guntur Dist Another and Others ...RESPONDENT(S) Counsel for the Petitioner: 1. M SHALINI Counsel for the Respondent(S): 1. 2. GP FOR CIVIL SUPPLIES (AP) The court made the following ORDER:- The writ petition is filed seeking writ of mandamus, praying the following main relief:- “……declaring the action of the respondents in relieving the petitioner at the age of 58 years instead of 60 years is contrary to the provisions of Act No.4 dated 27th June, 2014, resolution, contrary to the Judgment of the Honble Apex Court dated 05.05.2017 illegal, arbitrary and ultravires to the Constitution of India consequently direct the respondents to reinduct the petitioner and continue them in service upto 60 years of age along with consequential benefits in the interest of justice and to pass……” 2 2. The conspectus of the writ petition is that the petitioner is seeking continuation of his service in the respondent's Corporation upto the superannuation age of 60 years. 3. Sri P. Venkata Rama Sarma, learned counsel representing Smt.M.Shalini, learned counsel for the petitioner, states that as the writ petition was instituted long back, presently, the petitioner is not in contact with them. 4. Conversely, learned Assistant Government Pleader submits that in view of efflux of time, the writ petition becomes infructuous. 5. Apparently, this Court at the stage of admission has not passed any interim orders in favour of the petitioner. 6. In fact, the writ petition was instituted way back in the year 2017, when the petitioner was aged about 59 years. More than eight years have elapsed from the date of institution of the lis. Since the petitioner would have already attained the age of 60 years by 2018, the relief sought in the writ petition does not survive for adjudication. 7. In these circumstances, this Court is of the view that merely keeping the writ petition pending would serve no useful purpose. Accordingly, the writ petition is closed. 8. However, this order will not preclude the petitioner from taking recourse to law as permissible, if so advised. 3 There shall be no order as to costs. As a sequel, all pending applications shall stand closed. _______________________________ JUSTICE MAHESWARA RAO KUNCHEAM Date: 25.07.2025 GVK 4 221 THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE MAHESWARA RAO KUNCHEAM WRIT PETITION No.19697 of 2017 Date: 25.07.2025 GVK