APHC010634012017 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: 13603/2017 Between: A Krishna Murhty Raju, Vizianagaram, A.p. ...PETITIONER AND The State Of A P Tourism Guntur Dist 5 Otrs and Others ...RESPONDENT(S) Counsel for the Petitioner: 1. M SHALINI Counsel for the Respondent(S): 1. 2. GANGULA ASHOK KUMAR REDDY (SC FORAPSTEP) 3. GP FOR FINANCE PLANNING (AP) 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 or any other order or direction particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus declaring the action of the Respondents in relieving the petitioner through Proceedings Rc.No.18/E/SETVIZ/2015, dated 23-03-2017 is contrary to the provisions of Act, 4, dated 27th June, 2014, their own Bye Laws, illegal, arbitrary and ultra vires the Constitution of India consequently direct the Respondents to continue the petitioner upto 60 years of age in the interest of justice 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 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. 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 281 THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE MAHESWARA RAO KUNCHEAM WRIT PETITION No.13603 of 2017 Date: 25.07.2025 SRT