1 APHC010732582017 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3504] FRIDAY, THE EIGHTEENTH DAY OF JULY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE MAHESWARA RAO KUNCHEAM WRIT PETITION NO: 21087/2017 Between: Bantupalli Kanna Rao ...PETITIONER AND The State Of Andhra Pradesh and Others ...RESPONDENT(S) Counsel for the Petitioner: 1. V SAI KUMAR Counsel for the Respondent(S): 1. GP FOR INDUSTRIES COMMERCE (TG) 2. GP FOR INDUSTRIES & COMMERCE (AP) The Court Made the Following Order:- This Writ Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India is filed for the following relief: “to issue an order direction or Writ Petition more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus declaring the action of the 4th respondent in retiring the petitioner by way of superannuation w.e.f 30.06.2017 relating the age of 58 years through the Notice in TCS/ADMNJESTT/S A /201718 Dt.24.05.2017 as 2 illegal unconstitutional and unreasonable and set aside the same consequentially direct the 4th respondent to continue the petitioner in service till the petitioner attaining the age of 60 years with all benefits and to pass...” 2. The sum and substance in the present lis is that the petitioner is seeking continuation of his service upto the age of 60 years. 3. On 11.07.2025, there was no representation for the petitioner. Today also, none appeared for the petitioner despite the matter being posted under the caption ‘for dismissal’. 4. Smt. Sudeepthi Potluri, learned Assistant Government Pleader for Industries & Commerce, submits that the writ petitioner retired from the service on 30.06.2017 itself and he also received all retirement benefits from the concerned authorities. Therefore, the cause in the writ petition does not survive for further adjudication. 5. As seen from the material available on record, it is evident that the petitioner was aged about 58 years at the time of filing the writ petition. In fact, the petitioner sought for continuation of his services upto the age of 60 years. However, due to efflux of time, petitioner would have already crossed 65 years as on today and the prayer sought by the petitioner would not survive for consideration. 6. In these circumstances, this Court is of the view that merely keeping the writ petition pending would yield no useful purpose. Therefore, 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. 3 As a sequel thereto, the miscellaneous petitions, if any, pending in this Writ Petition shall stand closed. _____________________________ MAHESWARA RAO KUNCHEAM,J 18.07.2025. Asr 4 THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE MAHESWARA RAO KUNCHEAM WRIT PETITION NO.21087 of 2017 18.07.2025 Asr