APHC010588792013 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3331] FRIDAY, THE FIFTH DAY OF DECEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE SUBBA REDDY SATTI WRIT PETITION NO: 11552/2013 Between: 1. Z.NAGESWARA RAO,, S/O. CHINNA RATAIAH, AGED ABOUT 24 YEARS, R/O. MADDALAKATTA VILLAGE, PEDDARAVEEDU MANDAL, PRAKASAM DISTRICT. ...PETITIONER AND 1. THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR/DISTRICT PROJECT COCOORDINATOR, NREGS, DWMA, ONGOLE, PRAKASAM DISTRICT. 2. THE PROJECT DIRECTOR NREGS DWMA, ONGOLE, PRAKASAM 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 an order or direction more particularly one in the nature Writ of Mandamus declaring the impugned orders vide Proceeding R.C.No.D4/517/2011, dated 04-07-2011 of the 2nd respondent, removing the petitioner from the service of Field Assistant, Maddalakatta village panchayat, Peddaraveedu Mandal, Prakasam District, without even considering the explanation and conducting any enquiry and further action of the 1st respondent in not considering the documentary proof in support of petitioner appeal dated 18-07-2011 simply rejected and confirmed the orders of the 2nd respondent, as illegal, arbitrary and violation of Articles 14, 19 and 21 of the 2 Constitution of India and consequently set aside the aforesaid impugned orders of the 2nd respondent IA NO: 1 OF 2013(WPMP 14312 OF 2013 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 suspend the operation of the impugned orders in Proceeding R.C.No.D4/517/2011, dated 04-07-2011 of the 2nd respondent Counsel for the Petitioner: 1. K RATHANGA PANI REDDY Counsel for the Respondent(S): 1. GP FOR PANCHAYAT RAJ & RURAL DEV The Court made the following: ::ORDER:: Sri Naga Phanindra, learned counsel representing Sri K.Rathanga Pani Reddy, learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the cause in the writ petition does not survive and hence, the same is now rendered infructuous. 2. Recording the above submission, the Writ Petition is dismissed as infructuous. No order as to costs. As a sequel, all the pending miscellaneous petitions shall stand closed. ______________________ SUBBA REDDY SATTI, J Dated: 05.12.2025 SNI 3 335 THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE SUBBA REDDY SATTI WRIT PETITION No.11552 of 2013 Dated: 05.12.2025 SNI