APHC010863252016 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH FRIDAY, THE TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE MAHESWARA RAO KUNCHEAM WRIT PETITION NO: Between: 1. M. DAVID,, S/O. K. MOGILAIAH AGED ABOUT 58 YEARS, OCC: CONDUCTOR, R/O. PUNYA SAMUDRAM TAVANAMPALLI MANDAL, KANIPAKAM POST, CHITTOOR DISTRICT. 1. THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH, REP. BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY, TRANSPORT DEPARTMENT, SECRETARIAT, HYDERABAD. 2. ANDHRA PRADESH STATE ROAD TRANSPORT CORPORATION, REP. BY ITS MANAGING DIRECTOR, BUS BHAVAN, HYDERABAD 500 624. 3. THE REGIONAL MANAGER, AND TRANSPORT CORPORATION, CHITTOOR REGION, TIRUPATHI, CHITTOOR DISTRICT. 4. THE DEPOT MANAGER, ANDHRA PRADESH STATE ROAD TRANSPORT CORPORATION, PALAMANEURU, CHITTOOR DISTRICT. 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 or order, direction more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus d IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) THE TWENTY SEVENTH DAY OF JUNE TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE MAHESWARA RAO KUNCHEAM WRIT PETITION NO: 16408/2016 M. DAVID,, S/O. K. MOGILAIAH AGED ABOUT 58 YEARS, OCC: CONDUCTOR, R/O. PUNYA SAMUDRAM TAVANAMPALLI MANDAL, KANIPAKAM POST, CHITTOOR DISTRICT. ...PETITIONER AND THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH, REP. BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY, TRANSPORT DEPARTMENT, SECRETARIAT, ANDHRA PRADESH STATE ROAD TRANSPORT CORPORATION, REP. BY ITS MANAGING DIRECTOR, BUS BHAVAN, HYDERABAD THE REGIONAL MANAGER, ANDHRA PRADESH STATE ROAD TRANSPORT CORPORATION, CHITTOOR REGION, TIRUPATHI, CHITTOOR DISTRICT. THE DEPOT MANAGER, ANDHRA PRADESH STATE ROAD TRANSPORT CORPORATION, PALAMANEURU, CHITTOOR ...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 or order, direction more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus declaring the proceedings No. E2 /693(7)/15 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH [3504] TWENTY SEVENTH DAY OF JUNE THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE MAHESWARA RAO KUNCHEAM M. DAVID,, S/O. K. MOGILAIAH AGED ABOUT 58 YEARS, OCC: CONDUCTOR, R/O. PUNYA SAMUDRAM TAVANAMPALLI MANDAL, ...PETITIONER THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH, REP. BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY, TRANSPORT DEPARTMENT, SECRETARIAT, ANDHRA PRADESH STATE ROAD TRANSPORT CORPORATION, REP. BY ITS MANAGING DIRECTOR, BUS BHAVAN, HYDERABAD- HRA PRADESH STATE ROAD TRANSPORT CORPORATION, CHITTOOR REGION, TIRUPATHI, THE DEPOT MANAGER, ANDHRA PRADESH STATE ROAD TRANSPORT CORPORATION, PALAMANEURU, CHITTOOR ...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 or order, direction more particularly one in the nature eclaring the proceedings No. E2 /693(7)/15-PLMR 2 HMRK,J W.P.No.16408 of 2016 dated 01-12-2015 passed by the 4th Respondent in declaring the date of retirement of petitioner as 31-05-2016 as illegal, unsustainable and violate of Article 14, 16 and 21 of Constitution of India, apart from being contrary to the provisions of Act 4 of 2014 and consequently direct the respondent to continue the services of the Petitioner until he attains 60 years of age Counsel for the Petitioner: 1. P RAVI KIRAN Counsel for the Respondent(S): 1. GP FOR TRANSPORT (AP) 2. ARAVALA RAMA RAO(SC FOR APSRTC KKAC) 3 HMRK,J W.P.No.16408 of 2016 The Court made the following Order: The present Writ Petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for the following relief/s:- “…. to issue a writ or order, direction more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus declaring the proceedings No.E2/693(7)/15-PLMR dated 01-12-2015 passed by the 4th Respondent in declaring the date of retirement of petitioner as 31-05-2016 as illegal, unsustainable and violate of Article 14, 16 and 21 of Constitution of India, apart from being contrary to the provisions of Act 4 of 2014 and consequently direct the respondent to continue the services of the Petitioner until he attains 60 years of age and to pass such other order or orders.…” 2. On 20.06.2025, none appeared for the petitioner. Today also, in spite of posting the matter under the caption ‘for dismissal’, none appeared for the petitioner. 3. Learned Standing Counsel for the respondent-Corporation brought to the notice of this Court that no interim orders were passed in favour of the petitioner at the stage of admission and he also submits that petitioner retired from service on 31.05.2016 itself vide Notification orders No.E2/693(7)/15-PLMR, dated 01.12.2015. To that effect, he placed the above stated Notification orders dated 01.12.2015. Therefore, the cause in the writ petition does not survive for further adjudication. 4 HMRK,J W.P.No.16408 of 2016 4. Thus, taking into consideration the above submission made by the learned Standing Counsel for the respondent-Corporation, the instant Writ Petition is closed. There shall be no order as to costs. As a sequel, Interlocutory Applications pending, if any, shall stand closed. ______________________________ MAHESWARA RAO KUNCHEAM, J Dated: 27.06.2025 MDP