APHC010810072002 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3332] THURSDAY,THE TWENTY FIFTH DAY OF SEPTEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE RAVI CHEEMALAPATI WRIT PETITION NO: 13422/2002 Between: 1. V.S.SAI BABU, S/O. VENKATA RATNAM, HINDU, R/O. BELLAMPUDI, P.GANNAVARAM MANDAL, E.G.DISTRICT. ...PETITIONER AND 1. THE DEPUTY COMMR OF LABOUR ELURU W G DT3 ORS, & DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF LABOUR, ELURU, W.G.DISTRICT. 2. THE AUTHORITY UNDER SEC 48 OF A P SHOPS ESTABLISHMENT ACT, ASSISTANT COMMIEEIONER OF LABOUR, KAKINADA, E.G.DISTRICT. 3. A ADINARAYANA RAO, CHAIRMAN PERSON-INCHARGE COMMITTEE, SRI BHUVANESWARI P.A.C.S.LIMITED., P.GANNAVARAM, 4. THE SECRETARY, SRI BHUNANESWARI P.A.C.S.LIMITED., P.GANAVARRAM, E.G.DISTRICT. ...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 to issue a Writ, order or direction more particularly one in the nature of certiorari calling for the records relating to the order passed by the 1st respondent in A.P.S.A.No.3 of 2002 dt.27.5.2002 in which the order of the 2nd respondent passed in caseNo.A.P.S.E.No.1 of 2001dt. 27.10.2001 was reversed and to quash the same as illegal, arbitrary and unjust and consequently issue direction to the respondent 3 & 4 to re-instate the petitioner into service with back wages and with continuity of service forthwith and pass. IA NO: 1 OF 2002(WPMP 16696 OF 2002 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 for hearing of the above Writ Petition and pass. Counsel for the Petitioner: 1. N SIVA REDDY Counsel for the Respondent(S): 1. GP FOR LABOUR The Court made the following: ORDER: Sri M.Siva Ram, learned counsel representing Sri N.Siva Reddy, learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that inspite of their efforts, the petitioner is not in contact with him for a long time and they have no instructions in the matter. 2. Since the matter pertains to the year 2002, the party should invariable be in contact with his advocate, however, in the present case, the petitioner had not been pursuing the case through his advocate, it shows that the petitioner had 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 petitioner feels that the cause still survives, he 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: 25th September, 2025 RKS