APHC010135872012 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3459] TUESDAY,THE NINETEENTH DAY OF AUGUST TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SMT JUSTICE SUMATHI JAGADAM WRIT PETITION NO: 11904/2012 Between: 1. V. KRISHNA REDDY, S/O. LATE V. RAJA REDDY PROP M/S.V.KRISHNA REDDY & SONS, IOC DEALERS, NEAR EMPLOYMENT EXCHANGE, PALAMANER ROAD, CHITTOR 517001 ...PETITIONER AND 1. THE EMPLOYEES STATE INSURANCE CORPORATION, REP. BY ITS REGIONAL DIRECTIOR, ANDHRA PRADESH, HILL FORT ROAD, HYDERABAD 2. THE EMPLOYEES STATE INSURANCE CORPORATION, REP. BY ITS DIRECTIOR (REVENUE), PANCHADEEP BHAVAN, CIG MARG, NEW DELHI ...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 declare the inaction of the 1st respondent for not considering and accepting the applications of the petitioner filed under amnesty scheme dt. 04.10.2010 and 12.01.2011 in the light of New Amnesty Scheme-2010 issued vide No. P-11/4/32/2009-Rev-II dt. 02.03.2010 by the 2nd respondent for withdrawal of criminal cases more precisely, P.C.No.41 of 2004 on the file of JFMC/ Labour-Court-I, Hydserabiad and proceeded with the matter inspite of pending amensty applications as said supra and prosecuted further to convict the petitioner inspite of receiving the excess amount is bad, illegal, arbitrary, ultravirus, unconstitutional, violates the clauses of Amnesty scheme- 2010, Employees State Inurance Act, 1948, its Rules and Regulations consequently direct the 15t respondent to dispose of the petitioner 2 amnesty applications and refund the excess amount of Rs. 1,58;41400 collectd from the petitioner contrary to the actuals of Rs. 41,586 through vide D.D.No. 023072 for an amount of Rs.2,00,000/- dt. 27.02.2010 drawn from Axis Bank Ltd.,Chittoor, and pass IA NO: 1 OF 2012(WPMP 14988 OF 2012 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 direct the 1st respondent to consider the accept application filed under New Amnesty Scheme 2010 dt. 4.10.2010 and 12.1.2011, by directing to pay back the excess amount by the petitioner immediately pending disposal of the writ petition and pass Counsel for the Petitioner: 1. V SURENDRA REDDY Counsel for the Respondent(S): 1. P RAJASEKHAR The Court made the following: 3 ORDER: Sri A. Sudheer Kumar, learned counsel representing Sri V. Surendra Reddy, learned counsel for the petitioner, submits that the cause in the writ petition does not survive for adjudication and the writ petition has become infructuous. Recording the said submission, the Writ Petition is dismissed as infructuous. No order as to costs. As a sequel, pending miscellaneous petitions, if any, shall stand closed. __________________________ JUSTICE SUMATHI JAGADAM 19th August, 2025. cbn 4 168 THE HON’BLE SMT. JUSTICE SUMATHI JAGADAM WP No.11904 of 2012 19th August, 2025 cbn