1 APHC010286542017 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) MONDAY,THE THIRTEENTH DAY OF OCTOBER TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE MAHESWARA RAO KUNCHEAM WRIT PETITION NO: 1721 OF 2017 Between: 1. A. Sudhakar, E-577505, APSRTC Driver, Nandyal Depot, S/o.Chinna Muni, aged 45 yrs, R/o.Nandyal, Kurnool Dist ...Petitioner AND 1. The A.P.S.R.T.C., rep by its Managing Director, Musheerabad, Hyderabad 2. The Regional Manager, A.P.S.R.T.C., Kurnool Region, at Kurnool, Kurnool Dist. 3. The Depot Manager, A.P.S.R.T.C., Nandyal Depot, Kurnool Dist. ...Respondents 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 3rd respondent in issuing the repatriation Proceedings No: E1/813(1)/2017- NDL, Dt 10-1-2017, contrary to the notification issued by the 1st respondent vide Proc No: GC2/813(44)/2014-PO-1, 2 Dt.18.5.2016 as high handed and arbitrary action, without jurisdiction, contrary to APSRTC Regulations, contrary to the circular instructions, capricious, unconstitutional, and as such liable to be set aside in the interest of justice with a consequential direction to the respondents to continue the petitioner at Nandyal Depot forthwith and pass Counsel for the Petitioner: S M SUBHAN Counsel for the Respondents: ARAVALA RAMA RAO(SC FOR APSRTC KKAC) The Court made the following order: The writ petition is filed by the petitioner under Art. 226 of the Constitution of India, seeking the following main relief: “to issue an order or direction more particularly one in the nature of writ of Mandamus declaring the action of the 3rd respondent in issuing the repatriation Proceedings No: E1/813(1)/2017- NDL, Dt 10-1-2017, contrary to the notification issued by the 1st respondent vide Proc No: GC2/813(44)/2014-PO-1, Dt.18.5.2016 as high handed and arbitrary action, without jurisdiction, contrary to APSRTC Regulations, contrary to the circular instructions, capricious, unconstitutional, and as such liable to be set aside in the interest of justice with a consequential direction to the respondents to continue the petitioner at Nandyal Depot forthwith and pass......” 2. When the matter is taken up for hearing, learned Standing Counsel for respondent Corporation Sri Aravala Rama Rao, submits that after filing of the writ 3 petition, petitioner viz.A.Sudhakar again transferred to Nandyal Depot, and presently, the petitioner is working in Nandyal Depot only. Accordingly, the cause in the writ petition does not survive for further adjudication. 3. Recording the submission made by the learned Standing Counsel, as no further orders are required to be passed in this writ petition, the writ petition is closed. There shall be no order as to costs. As a sequel, all pending applications shall stand closed. ____________________________________ JUSTICE MAHESWARA RAO KUNCHEAM Date:13.10.2025 Rns 4 THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE MAHESWARA RAO KUNCHEAM WRIT PETITION No.1721 of 2017 Date: 13.10.2025 RNS 5