APHC010812402002 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH (Special Original Jurisdiction) THURSDAY,THE TWENTY FIFTH DAY OF SEPTEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE RAVI CHEEMALAPATI WRIT PETITION NO: Between: 1. PUTTA VENKATA RAMACHANDRA REDDY, S/O.GOPAL REDDY, R/O.NANDIPADU, DUTHALUR MANDAL, NELLORE DISTRICT. 1. PINAKINI GRAMEENA BANK NELLORE, REP. BY ITS CHAIRMAN, NELLORE. 2. BOARD OF DIRECTORS APPELLATE AUTHORITY GRAMEENA, BANK, NELLORE. Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed therewith, the High Court may be pleased toto issue a Writ of Mandamus or any ot orders, Direction or Directions Declaring Regulation 38(i) (a) (ii) of the Pinakini Grameena Bank Officers Employees Service Regulation Violative of Article 16 of the Constitution of India and to issue a co direction setting aside the proceedings of the 1st Respondent dated 27 2001 as confirmed by the proceedings of the 2nd Respondent dated 26 2002 and pass such other order or orders as this Hon'ble Court may deem fit and proper in the circumstances of the case. IA NO: 1 OF 2002(WVMP 1781 OF 2002 Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased to IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) THURSDAY,THE TWENTY FIFTH DAY OF SEPTEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE RAVI CHEEMALAPATI WRIT PETITION NO: 11178/2002 PUTTA VENKATA RAMACHANDRA REDDY, S/O.GOPAL REDDY, R/O.NANDIPADU, DUTHALUR MANDAL, NELLORE DISTRICT. ...PETITIONER AND PINAKINI GRAMEENA BANK NELLORE, REP. BY ITS CHAIRMAN, BOARD OF DIRECTORS APPELLATE AUTHORITY GRAMEENA, BANK, NELLORE. ...RESPONDENT(S): Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed therewith, the High Court may be pleased toto issue a Writ of Mandamus or any other appropriate Writ order or orders, Direction or Directions Declaring Regulation 38(i) (a) (ii) of the Pinakini Grameena Bank Officers Employees Service Regulation -2000 as arbitrary, Violative of Article 16 of the Constitution of India and to issue a consequentlial direction setting aside the proceedings of the 1st Respondent dated 27 2001 as confirmed by the proceedings of the 2nd Respondent dated 26 2002 and pass such other order or orders as this Hon'ble Court may deem fit mstances of the case. IA NO: 1 OF 2002(WVMP 1781 OF 2002 Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased to IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH [3332] THURSDAY,THE TWENTY FIFTH DAY OF SEPTEMBER THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE RAVI CHEEMALAPATI PUTTA VENKATA RAMACHANDRA REDDY, S/O.GOPAL REDDY, R/O.NANDIPADU, DUTHALUR MANDAL, NELLORE DISTRICT. ...PETITIONER PINAKINI GRAMEENA BANK NELLORE, REP. BY ITS CHAIRMAN, PINAIANI ...RESPONDENT(S): Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed therewith, the High Court may be her appropriate Writ order or orders, Direction or Directions Declaring Regulation 38(i) (a) (ii) of the Pinakini 2000 as arbitrary, nsequentlial direction setting aside the proceedings of the 1st Respondent dated 27-11- 2001 as confirmed by the proceedings of the 2nd Respondent dated 26-2- 2002 and pass such other order or orders as this Hon'ble Court may deem fit Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased to vacate the interim order passed in WP MP.No.13755/2002 in W.P.No.11178 of 2002 dt.25.6.2002 and passed such further or other orders as this Hon'ble Court may deems fit and proper in the circumstances of the case. IA NO: 2 OF 2002(WPMP 13755 OF 2002 Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased to suspend the proceedings of the 1st respondent dated 27-11-2001 as confirmend by the 2nd respondent on 26-2-2002 pending disposal of the Writ Petition and pass such other order or roders as this Hon'ble Court may deem fit and proper in the circumstances of the case. Counsel for the Petitioner: 1. VEDULA SRINIVAS Counsel for the Respondent(S): 1. V UMA DEVI The Court made the following: ORDER Ms.Priyanvitha, learned counsel for the petitioner, submitted that cause in this writ petition no longer survives and the writ petition has become infructuous. In view of the submission made by the learned counsel for the petitioner, this writ petition is dismissed as infructuous. There shall be no order as to costs. Pending miscellaneous petitions, if any, shall stand closed. JUSTICE RAVI CHEEMALAPATI RR