APHC010955962018 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3396] TUESDAY, THE TWENTY FIFTH DAY OF MARCH TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE DR. JUSTICE VENKATA JYOTHIRMAI PRATAPA WRIT PETITION NO: 46231/2018 Between: P.B. PRABHAKAR, S/O. LATE BALAIAH, AGED ABOUT 58 YEARS, TECHNICAL WORK INSPECTOR O/O. PROJECT DIRECTOR, A.P. STATE HOUSING CORPORATION LIMITED, ANANTHAPURAM, A.P. ...PETITIONER AND 1. THE A P STATE HOUSING CORPORATION LTD, REP. BY ITS MANAGING DIRECTOR, AMARAVATHI, GUNTUR DISTRICT A.P. 2. THE MANAGING DIRECTOR, A. P. STATE HOUSING CORPORATION LTD., AMARAVATHI, GUNTUR DISTRICT A.P. 3. THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR AND EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, A. P. STATE HOUSING CORPORATION LTD., ANANTHAPURAM. 4. THE DISTRICT MANAGER, A. P. STATE HOUSING CORPORATION LTD., ANANTHAPURAM. ...RESPONDENT(S): Counsel for the Petitioner: 1. N B CHANDRA SEKHAR 2. D LINGA RAO Counsel for the Respondent(S): 1. KALYAN CHAKRAVARTHY.R (STANDING COUNSEL FOR HOUSING CORP) The Court made the following: ORDER: This Writ Petition is filed under Article 226 of Constitution of India with the following prayer for: “.... a writ of Mandamus, to declare the action of the respondents in continuing the disciplinary proceedings against the petitioner on same set of facts and evidences pursuant to 2 charge memo issued by the 3rd Respondent in proceedings Rc.No. 255/2009/Vig/AM-II dated 18-5-2009 though the petitioner acquitted in CC No. 34 of 2013 dated 15-7-2016 in respect of very same allegations on merits and further denying promotion to the post of Assistant Engineer on the ground of pendency of departmental proceedings as arbitrary, illegal, unjust, amounting to double jeopardy and in violation of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India and further be pleased to hold that the petitioner is entitled to have his case considered and be promoted as Assistant Engineer with all consequential benefits in the interest of justice.” 2. When the matter is taken up for hearing, Sri N.B.Chandra Sekhar, learned counsel for the Petitioner would submit that the Petitioner is no more and hence, no further orders are required in this matter and the petition may be disposed of. 3. Sri R.Kalyan Chakravarthy, learned Standing Counsel for Respondents- Corporation would submit that the Court may pass appropriate orders. 4. In that view, the Writ Petition is disposed of. There shall be no order as to costs. As a sequel thereto, miscellaneous petitions, if any, pending shall stand closed. ________________________________________ Dr.JUSTICE VENKATA JYOTHIRMAI PRATAPA Date:25.03.2025 Dinesh 3 HON’BLE DR. JUSTICE VENKATA JYOTHIRMAI PRATAPA W.P.No.46231 of 2018 Dt.25.03.2025 Dinesh