APHC010307592003 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: 6787/2003 Between: 1. KOLLA SATAYANARAYANA, S/O.LAXMANNA R/O. PENUMADAM (VILLAGE), PODURU MANDAL, W.G.DISTRICT. ...PETITIONER AND 1. THE JOINT REGISTRAR DISTRICT COOPERATIVE OFICER, ELURU, W.G.DISTRICT. 2. THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR, ELURU, W.G.DISTRICT. 3. V MANDESWARA RAO, SECRETARY THE PENUMADAM PRIMARY AGRICULTURAL CO-OPERATIVE CREDIT SOCIETY, PENUMADAM (VILLAGE), PODUR MANDAL, ...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 an order or direction more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus declaring the action of the 2nd respondent in dealing with the Appeal in proceedings No.Roc (coopn) No.4663/2001-C filled by the Dismissed Secretary and directing the Society to reinstate the Secretary vide order Dt.27.3.2003 as illegal, without jurisdiction unjust and arbitrary contrary to the provisions of the By-Law 12(3) and as such liable to be set aside in the interest of justice with a consequential direction to the 3rd respondent herein to call for the records relating to and in connection with the appeal in Roc (Co- opn) No.4663/2001-C and to decide the same forthwith and pass. 2 IA NO: 1 OF 2003(WPMP 8842 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 stay the reinstatement orders passed by R2 in ROC(Co-opn) No.4663/2001- C, Dt.27-3.2003 forthwith pending disposal of the Writ Petition and pass. Counsel for the Petitioner: 1. S M SUBHAN Counsel for the Respondent(S): 1. GP FOR AGRICULTURE 2. ELEVATED AS JUDGE 3 The Court made the following order: Though the matter is listed today under the caption ‘For Dismissal’, there is no representation on behalf of the petitioner. On earlier occasions also i.e., on 11.09.2025 and 11.08.2025, there was no representation on behalf of the petitioner. It shows that the petitioner is not interested in prosecuting his case. Hence, the Writ Petition is dismissed for non-prosecution. There shall be no order as to costs. As a sequel, all the pending miscellaneous applications are closed. ___________________________ JUSTICE RAVI CHEEMALAPATI Date: 25.09.2025 MP 4 166 THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE RAVI CHEEMALAPATI WRIT PETITION NO:6787 of 2003 Date: 25.09.2025 MP