APHC010806012016 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3504] MONDAY, THE TWENTY FIRST DAY OF JULY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE MAHESWARA RAO KUNCHEAM WRIT PETITION NO: 2275/2016 Between: S.K. Masthan, ...PETITIONER AND The State Of Andhra Pradesh and Others ...RESPONDENT(S) Counsel for the Petitioner: 1. M SHALINI Counsel for the Respondent(S): 1. GP FOR ENERGY (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 issuing petitioner retirement notice dated 5.1.2016 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 ultra vires to the Constitution of India consequently direct the respondents to continue the petitioner in service upto 60 years of age along with consequential benefits in the interest of justice and to pass……” 2 2. The sum and substance in the present lis is that the petitioner is seeking continuation of their service in the respondents 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 Energy submits that in view of efflux of time, the writ petition becomes infructuous. 5. As seen from the material available on record, it is evident that the writ petition was instituted way back in the year 2016, when the petitioner was aged about 58 years. More than nine 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. Hence, the writ petition is closed. 7. 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: 21.07.2025 GVK 4 56 THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE MAHESWARA RAO KUNCHEAM WRIT PETITION No.2275 of 2016 Date: 21.07.2025 GVK