APHC010541812012 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH FRIDAY,THE FOURTEENTH DAY OF NOVEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE SUBBA REDDY SATTI WRIT PETITION NO: Between: 1. P.KRISHNA, E-484168, HAMMER MAN,, D/O. SATYANARAYANA, 56 YRS, NARSIPATNAM DEPOT, RIO. NARSIPATNAM, VISAKHAPATNAM DISTRICT 1. THE A P S R T C REP BY ITS MANAGING DIRECTOR, MUSHEERABAD, HYDERABAD. 2. THE REGIONAL MANAGER A P S R T C, VISAKHAPATNAM REGION, VISAKHAPATNAM DIST. 3. THE DIVISIONAL MANAGER/DY CTMU, 0/0 REGIONAL MANAGER, A.P.S.R.T.C., VISAKHAPATNAM REGION, VISAKHAPATNAM DIST. 4. THE DEPOT MANAGER A P S R T C, WALTAIR DEPOT, VISAKHAPATNAM DIST. 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 an order or direction more particularly one in the writ of Mandamus declaring the action of the 4th respondent in removing the petitioner from service vide Proc: P2/498(1)/04 was modified by the 3rd respondent by ordering reinstatement by imposing the punishment of reduc period of two years, with cumulative effect besides treating the removal period IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) FRIDAY,THE FOURTEENTH DAY OF NOVEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE SUBBA REDDY SATTI WRIT PETITION NO: 40447/2012 484168, HAMMER MAN,, D/O. SATYANARAYANA, 56 YRS, NARSIPATNAM DEPOT, RIO. NARSIPATNAM, VISAKHAPATNAM DISTRICT ...PETITIONER AND THE A P S R T C REP BY ITS MANAGING DIRECTOR, MUSHEERABAD, HYDERABAD. THE REGIONAL MANAGER A P S R T C, VISAKHAPATNAM REGION, VISAKHAPATNAM DIST. THE DIVISIONAL MANAGER/DY CTMU, 0/0 REGIONAL MANAGER, A.P.S.R.T.C., VISAKHAPATNAM REGION, VISAKHAPATNAM DIST. THE DEPOT MANAGER A P S R T C, WALTAIR DEPOT, M DIST. ...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 an order or direction more particularly one in the writ of Mandamus declaring the action of the 4th respondent in removing the petitioner from service vide Proc: P2/498(1)/04-WTR, Dt. 21 was modified by the 3rd respondent by ordering reinstatement by imposing the punishment of reduction of basic pay by two incremental stages for a period of two years, with cumulative effect besides treating the removal period IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH [3331] FRIDAY,THE FOURTEENTH DAY OF NOVEMBER THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE SUBBA REDDY SATTI 484168, HAMMER MAN,, D/O. SATYANARAYANA, 56 YRS, NARSIPATNAM DEPOT, RIO. NARSIPATNAM, ...PETITIONER THE A P S R T C REP BY ITS MANAGING DIRECTOR, THE REGIONAL MANAGER A P S R T C, VISAKHAPATNAM THE DIVISIONAL MANAGER/DY CTMU, 0/0 REGIONAL MANAGER, A.P.S.R.T.C., VISAKHAPATNAM REGION, VISAKHAPATNAM DIST. THE DEPOT MANAGER A P S R T C, WALTAIR DEPOT, ...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 an order or direction more particularly one in the nature of writ of Mandamus declaring the action of the 4th respondent in removing the WTR, Dt. 21-2-2005, which was modified by the 3rd respondent by ordering reinstatement by imposing tion of basic pay by two incremental stages for a period of two years, with cumulative effect besides treating the removal period as not on duty, vide Proc. No: St/19(18)/2005-VSP-U, Dt 14-6-2005 as high handed and arbitrary action, contrary to APSRTC Regulations, contrary to the circular instructions and as such liable to be set aside in the interest of justice in so far it went against to the petitioner with a consequential direction to extend all the benefits for the removal period along with wages forthwith IA NO: 1 OF 2012(WPMP 51300 OF 2012 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 fix an early date of hearing of the W.P. Counsel for the Petitioner: 1. S M SUBHAN Counsel for the Respondent(S): 1. K. SARALA REDDY(SC FOR APSRTC,PNV) The Court made the following: Today, when the matter is taken up for hearing, learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that by efflux of time, the cause in the writ petition does not survive for adjudication and the writ petition has become infructuous. 2. Given the submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner, the Writ Petition is dismissed as infructuous. No order as to costs. Miscellaneous petitions, if any pending, in this case, shall stand closed. ___________________________ JUSTICE SUBBA REDDY SATTI Date: 14.11.2025 IKN