APHC010449832003 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3332] FRIDAY,THE TWENTY SIXTH DAY OF SEPTEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE RAVI CHEEMALAPATI WRIT PETITION NO: 17249/2003 Between: 1. CHAGANTI LAVA KUMAR & 3 OTHERS, S/O.HARINATH BILL COLLECTOR R/O.NARSAPUR WEST GODAVARI DISTRICT. 2. BHOOPATHI SURESH BABU, S/O.SURYANARAYANA 3. CHEGONDI BANDARI, S/O.VENKATA RATNAM 4. CH.L.RAMA SATYA RAMESH, S/O.GANGA RAO ...PETITIONER(S) AND 1. THE DISTRICT COOPEATIVE OFFICER WG 2, WEST GODAVARI DISTRICT, ELURU 2. THE DEPUTY REGISTRAR OF COOPERATIVE, SOCIETIES, BHIMAVARAM, W.G.DIST 3. THE NARSAPUR COOPERATIVE URBAN BANK LTD, NARSAPUR, W.G.DISTRICT, REP.BY ITS PRESIDENT, SRI.V.V.KUMAR ...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 direction declaring the proceedings of the 2nd respondent in R.C.No.2972/02- E/D dt.18.6.2003 and the consequential action of the 3rd respondent in terminating the services of the petitioner on the basis of the said proceedings even without issuing any notices whatsoever is illegal, arbitrary, violative of principles of natural justice and also violataive of Articles 14 and 21 of the Constitution of India. IA NO: 1 OF 2003(WPMP 21409 OF 2003 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 direct the respondents to continue the services of the petitioners by suspending the proceedings of the 2nd Respondent in R.C.No.2972/02-E/D, dt.18.6.2003. Counsel for the Petitioner(S): 1. TURAGA SAI SURYA Counsel for the Respondent(S): 1. THOTA RAMAKOTESWARA RAO 2. 3. GP FOR COOPERATION The Court made the following: THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE RAVI CHEEMALAPATI WRIT PETITION NO: 17249/2003 ORDER: Sri K.Yaswanth, learned counsel representing Sri Turaga Sai Surya, learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that the petitioners are not in contact with him for a long time and he has no instructions in the matter. 2. When the writ petitions are pending before the Court, the parties should invariably be in contact with their advocate, however, in the present case, the petitioners had not been pursuing the case through their advocate, it shows that the petitioners have no interest in pursuing the matter. Hence, the Writ Petition is liable to be dismissed. 3. Accordingly, the Writ Petition is dismissed for non-prosecution. However, if the petitioners feel that the cause still survives, they can file appropriate application within a period of two (02) months. There shall be no order as to costs. As a sequel, miscellaneous applications, pending if any, shall stand closed. _____________________________ JUSTICE RAVI CHEEMALAPATI Date: 26th September, 2025 RKS