Research › Search › Judgment

High Court of Andhra Pradesh · body

2025 DAILYLAW 39000 (AP)

B. Chinna Obulesu v. State of Andhra Pradesh

WP/38718/2018 · 2025-04-25

Venkata Jyothirmai Pratapa

body2025

Judgment text

Extracted from the PDF above. The PDF is authoritative.

1 APHC010801082018 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3396] FRIDAY, THE TWENTY FIFTH DAY OF APRIL TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE DR JUSTICE VENKATA JYOTHIRMAI PRATAPA WRIT PETITION NO: 38718/2018 Between: B. Chinna Obulesu ...PETITIONER AND State Of Andhra Pradesh and Others ...RESPONDENT(S) Counsel for the Petitioner: 1. M SOLOMON RAJU Counsel for the Respondent(S): 1. M S R CHANDRA MURTHY 2. GP FOR PANCHAYAT RAJ RURAL DEV (AP) The Court made the following: ORDER: This Writ Petition is filed under Article 226 of Constitution of India with the following prayer for: “…to issue appropriate Writ Order or direction particularly a WRIT OF MANDAMUS declaring the temporary removal orders cum show cause notice of the 3rd respondent in C10/Praja Piryadu/Dappepalli/2018 dated 29.09.2018 thereby temporarily suspending the petitioner without any valid cause or reason as illegal irregular arbitrary and unjust besides violative of Articles 14 and 21 of Constitution of India and contrary to the provisions of Mahatma Gandhi National Rural Employment Guarantee Scheme Act 2005 2 and rules framed there under and consequently suspend the orders of the 3rd respondent in C10/Praja Piryadu/Dappepalli/2018 dated 29.09.2018 and also direct the respondent No 3 not to fill the post of Field Assistant for Dappepalli Panchayat of L.R. Palli Mandal, YSR Kadapa Dist till orders are passed on petitioners explanation dated 08.10.2018 and to pass…” 2. When the matter is taken up for hearing, Sri M.S.R.Chandra Murthy, learned Standing Counsel for NREGS would submit that the relief has become infructuous, in the light of reinstatement order passed by the Project Director dated 25.05.2019. 3. Learned Counsel for the petitioner would submit that recording the same, the Writ Petition may be disposed of. 4. Recording the same, the Writ Petition is dismissed, since, the relief has become infructuous. No order as to Costs. Pending applications, if any, shall stand closed. ____________________________________ Dr. VENKATA JYOTHIRMAI PRATAPA, J Date: 25.04.2025 UPS 3 19 HON’BLE DR. JUSTICE VENKATA JYOTHIRMAI PRATAPA W.P.No.38718 of 2018 Dated.25.04.2025 UPS