APHC010833872016 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3504] THURSDAY,THE SEVENTH DAY OF AUGUST TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE MAHESWARA RAO KUNCHEAM WRIT PETITION NO: 816/2016 Between: S. Sathebbai S/o Late Ganganna, ...PETITIONER AND State Of Andhra Pradesh and Others ...RESPONDENT(S) Counsel for the Petitioner: 1. MADHAVI PRIYA MANTENA Counsel for the Respondent(S): 1. GP FOR ENDOWMENTS (AP) 2. KOPPERA KOTESWARA RAO (S.C for 3rd respondent) 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 respondent No.3 in issuing the proceedings in Rc.No.A1/3335/2015 dated 3.1.2016 as illegal, arbitrary and un-constitutional and contrary to the Act 4 of 2014 issued by the 1st respondent on 27.6.2014 and set aside the same with a consequential direction directing the respondents to continue the petitioner in service till he completes the age of 60 years with all consequential service benefits……” 2. The conspectus of the writ petition is that the petitioner is seeking continuation of his service in the respondent’s Devasthanam upto the superannuation age of 60 years. 2 3. When the matter is called today, none appeared for the petitioner. 4. On the other hand, Sri Koppera Koteswara Rao, learned Standing Counsel for the 3rd respondent-Devasthanam, submits that consequent to the interim orders dated 25.07.2016 passed by this Court, the petitioner’s services were extended up to the age of superannuation of 60 years. He further submits that in view of the efflux of time, the matter renders infructuous. 5. Apparently, 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. 7. In these circumstances and in the absence of the representation from the petitioner’s side, this Court is of the view that merely keeping the writ petition pending would serve no useful purpose. Accordingly, the writ petition is closed. 8. 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: 07.08.2025 GVK 3 127 THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE MAHESWARA RAO KUNCHEAM WRIT PETITION No.816 of 2016 Date: 07.08.2025 GVK