APHC010824352002 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. D.VENKATESWARA RAO, S/O.VENKATA KRISHNA MURTHY R/O.TALAMANCHI, NELLORE DIST. 1. CHAIRMAN PINAKINI GRAMEENA BANK, REP.BY ITS CHAIRMAN, NELLORE. 2. BOARD OF DIRECTORS APPELLAGE AUTHORITY, PINAKINI 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 other appropriate writ orders, direction or directions declaring regulation 38(i) (a) (ii) of the Pinakini Grameena Bank Officers Employees Service Regulations violative of Art.16 of the Constitution of India and to issue a consequential direction setting aside the proceedings of the 1st respondent dt.27 confirmed by the proceedings of the 2nd respondnet dt.26 IA NO: 1 OF 2002(WVMP 1787 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 vate the interim orders passed in WPMP No.13753/2002 in WP No.11176/2002, dt.25-6-2002 and pass 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: 11176/2002 D.VENKATESWARA RAO, S/O.VENKATA KRISHNA MURTHY R/O.TALAMANCHI, NELLORE DIST. ...PETITIONER AND CHAIRMAN PINAKINI GRAMEENA BANK, REP.BY ITS CHAIRMAN, BOARD OF DIRECTORS APPELLAGE AUTHORITY, PINAKINI 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 orders, direction or directions declaring regulation 38(i) (a) (ii) of the Pinakini Grameena Bank Officers Employees Service Regulations - 2000 as arbitrary, violative of Art.16 of the Constitution of India and to issue a consequential setting aside the proceedings of the 1st respondent dt.27- confirmed by the proceedings of the 2nd respondnet dt.26-2-2002 and pass IA NO: 1 OF 2002(WVMP 1787 OF 2002 Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated e affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased to vate the interim orders passed in WPMP No.13753/2002 in WP 2002 and pass IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH [3332] THURSDAY,THE TWENTY FIFTH DAY OF SEPTEMBER THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE RAVI CHEEMALAPATI D.VENKATESWARA RAO, S/O.VENKATA KRISHNA MURTHY ...PETITIONER CHAIRMAN PINAKINI GRAMEENA BANK, REP.BY ITS CHAIRMAN, BOARD OF DIRECTORS APPELLAGE AUTHORITY, PINAKINI ...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 2000 as arbitrary, violative of Art.16 of the Constitution of India and to issue a consequential -11-2001 as 2002 and pass Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated e affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased to vate the interim orders passed in WPMP No.13753/2002 in WP IA NO: 2 OF 2002(WPMP 13753 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 dt.27-11-2001 as confirmed by the 2nd respondent on 26-2-2002 pending disposal of the W.P.and pass 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