APHC010031452007 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: 20247/2007 Between: 1. SMT.S.CHINNAMMADU, VIZIANAGARAM DISTRICT., W/O R.SIMMAYYA, TYPIST, CHIPURUPALLI RURAL ELECTRIC COOPERATIVE SOCIETY LTD., CHIPURUPALLI, VIZIANAGARAM, VIZIANAGARAM DISTRICT. ...PETITIONER AND 1. CHIPURUPALLI RURAL ELECTRIC CO OP SOCIETY LTD, rep., by its Managing Director, Chipurupalli, Vizianagaram, Vizianagaram District. ...RESPONDENT 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 in the nature of mandamus or otherwise declaring the action of the respondent in not regularising/absorbing the petitioner as Typist, as arbitrary, illegal and unconstitutional, violating Articles 14, 16 and 21 of the Constitution of India and issue consequential directions, directing the respondent to forthwith consider the case of the petitioner for absorption/regularization as Typist, with all consequential benefits, and pass such other order or orders as it deems fit and proper. IA NO: 1 OF 2007(WPMP 26138 OF 2007 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 forthwith consider the case of the petitioner for absorption/regularization as Typist, pending disposal of the Writ Petition and pass such other order or orders as it deems fit and proper. Counsel for the Petitioner: 1. P V KRISHNAIAH Counsel for the Respondent: 1. The Court made the following: THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE RAVI CHEEMALAPATI WRIT PETITION NO: 20247/2007 ORDER: Sri P.R.Y.Prajith, learned counsel representing Sri P.V.Krishnaiah, learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner was not in contact with them for a long time and they have no instructions in the matter. 2. when the matters are pending in the Courts, the parties should invariable be in contact with their 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 as infructuous. 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: 26th September, 2025 RKS