APHC010542692017 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: 19385/2017 Between: T.v.sesha Reddy & Another and Others ...PETITIONER(S) AND State Of A P Youth Adv Tourism Cul Dept 7 Others and Others ...RESPONDENT(S) Counsel for the Petitioner(S): 1. M SHALINI Counsel for the Respondent(S): 1. GP FOR TOURISM(AP) 2. GANGULA ASHOK KUMAR REDDY (SC FORAPSTEP) The Court made the following: ORDER: The writ petition is filed under Article 226 of Constitution of India, seeking the following main relief:- “……to issue appropriate Writ, order or orders more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus declaring the action of the Respondents in trying to retire the petitioners on 30-06-2017 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 Hon’ble Apex Court dated 05-05-2017, illegal, arbitrary and ultravires the Constitution of India consequently direct the Respondents to continue the petitioners in service upto 60 years of age along with consequential benefits in the interest of justice as was being done in all other similarly placed persons by virtue of interim directions of this Honble Court and to pass……” 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 for youth submits that in view of efflux of time, the writ petition becomes infructuous. 5. Apparently, the writ petition was instituted way back in the year 2017, when the petitioner was aged about 58 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 2019, the relief sought in the writ petition does not survive for adjudication. 6. 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. 7. However, this order will not preclude the petitioner from taking recourse to law as permissible, if so advised. 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 SRT 282 THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE MAHESWARA RAO KUNCHEAM WRIT PETITION No.19385 of 2017 Date: 25.07.2025 SRT