1 \ IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH::AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) FRIDAY, THE SECOND DAY OF MAY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE MAHESWARA RAO KUNCHEAM WRIT PETITION NO: 10458 OF 2016 0. between: Sri M.Veera Raghava Reddy, S/o. Sri M. Nagi Reddy, aged 58 years, Occupation: Chief Executive Officer (CEO), Sri Uma Kamandaleshwara PACS B108 Ryali, Ryali Village, Attireypuram Mandal, East Godavari District, Andhra Pradesh. i ...PETITIONER/S AND 1. The State of Andhra Pradesh, rep. by its Principal Secretary, Agriculture and Cooperative Departmdht/S^eicretariat, Hyderabad. 2. The Commissioner for Corpo^tfdn, Registrar of Cooperative Societies, A.P., Hyderabad. 3. The District Co-operative Central Bank ltd.,, East-Godavari District, by its Chief Executive Officer, Kakinada, Andhra Pradesh. 4. M/s. Sri Uma Kamandaleshwara PACS, B108 Ryali, rep. by its President, Ryali Village, Athreypuram Mandal, East Godavari District, Andhra Pradesh. rep. V ...RESPONDENTS Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying that in the circumstances stated in the^affidtVit filed therewith, the High Court may be pleased to issue an appropriate writ, order or direction more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus, declaring the action of the Respondent No.4 in orally difbcting the petitioner to retire from the on 31.03.2016 A.N.," contrary to the G.O.Ms.No.147 dated 30.06.2014 and contrary to 1®‘^Resp^ Memo No.5825/Coop.lll/2014- 7 services -V'-, > dated 23.05.2015, and Proceedings vide Rc.No.9362/2014/Cr2, dated 22.08.2015 and by not considering representation dated 23.03.2016 and resolution of General Body Meeting dated 23.09.2015 discriminative, in violation of principles of natural justice, violative of the Fundamental Right guarantee.d under Articles as arbitrary, illegal. 14 and the Constitutional Right guaranteed under Constitution of India and orders as are deemed fit and proper in the circumstances of the l-A. NO: 2 OF 2016(WPMP. NO: 13166 OF Petition under Section 15,1,CPC pass such other order or case. praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased to direct the 2"'^ and 4‘^sfRtespondent to continue the service of the dated 30.06.2014, Memo and Proceedings vide petitioner in reference to G.d:Ms.No.147 No.5825/Coop. III/2014-7 dated Rc.No.9362/2014/Cr2, dated 22.08:2015 of 1 Counsel for the Petitioner: SRI SRlNIVAS BASAVA Counsel for the Respondents: Ms. BOBBA VIJAYALAKSHMI :G1^ FOR COOPERATION 23.05.2015 St Respondent; :SRI^vDILIP JAVA RAM, STANDING COUNSEL The Court made the following -i \ APHC010617942016 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) FRIDAY, THE SECOND DAY OF MAY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE [3504] PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE MAHESWARA RAO KUNCHEAM / WRIT PETITION NO: 10458/2016 \ Between: M.veera Raghava Reddy, E.g. Dist. ...PETITIONER AND PrI Secy AgrI Coop Dept 3 Ors and Others ...RESPONDENT(S) I Counsel for the Petitioner: 1.SRINIVAS BASAVA Counsel for the Respondent(S): 1. BOBBA VIJAYALAKSHMI 2.GP FOR COOPERATION (AP) 3.S DILIP JAYA RAM The Court made the following Order: Today, when the matter is taken up for hearing, Sri Srinivas Basava, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that in view of the subsequent events, the lis in the present Writ Petition does not survive for further adjudication. 2 2. Recording the submission made by learned counsel for the petitioner, the Writ Petition is dismissed as infructuons. No order as to costs. \ Interlocutory Applications, if any, stand closed in terms of this order. Sd/- K KASIRAO ACHARI ASSISTANT REGISTRAR //TRUE COPY// ^fepiCER / SECTI To, 1. One CC to SRI SRINIVAS BASAVA Advocate 2. One CC to M/s. BOBBA VIJAYALAKSHMI Advocate [OPUC] [OPUC] 3. Two CCS to GP FOR COOPERATION (AP), High Court of Andhra Pradesh [OUT] 4. One CC to SRI S. DILIP JAYA RAM 5. Three CD Copies STANDING COUNSEL [OPUC] gsg r HIGH COURT \ DATED:02/05/2025 ORDER WP.No. 10458 of 2016 'O S 2 <1 SEP 2tl2b S %^esPATC«^^ DISMISSIONG THE WRIT PETITION AS INFRUCTUOUS