APHC010286342019 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3368] THURSDAY, THE NINTH DAY OF OCTOBER TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE B V L N CHAKRAVARTHI WRIT PETITION NO: 13147/2019 Between: 1. ANASANI RAJABABU,, S/O.NUKARAJU, AGED ABOUT 36 YEARS, WORKING AS SENIOR MATE IN MGNREGS AT PANDRAVADA VILLAGE AND GRAM PANCHAYAT, SAMARLAKOTA MANDAL, EAST GODAVARI DISTRICT. ...PETITIONER AND 1. THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH, REP. BY ITS PRL.SECRETARY, PANCHAYAT RAJ AND RURAL DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT, SECRETARIAT AT VELAGAPUDI, GUNTUR DISTRICT. 2. THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR AND COORDINATOR, MGNREGS, EAST GODAVARI DISTRICT AT KAKINADA. 3. THE PROJECT DIRECTOR, DWMA AND ADDL.DPC, NREGS, EAST GODAVARI DISTRICT AT KAKINADA. 4. THE MANDAL PARISHAD DEVELOPMENT OFFICER, SAMARLAKOTA MANDAL, EAST GODAVARI DISTRICT. 5. P BABY SRILAKSHMI, W/O.SRINU, R/O.PANDRAVADA VILLAGE, SAMARLAKOTA MANDAL, EAST GODAVARI DISTRICT. ...RESPONDENT(S): 2 Counsel for the Petitioner: 1. K VENKATESH Counsel for the Respondent(S): 1. SPL C FOR NREGS(M S R CHANDRA MURTHY) 2. GP FOR PANCHAYAT RAJ RURAL DEV (AP) 3. P L NARASIMHA RAO The Court made the following: 3 THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE B.V.L.N.CHAKRAVARTHI WRIT PETITION No.13147 OF 2019 ORDER: This Writ Petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for the following relief: “….to issue appropriate writ or order or direction more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus declaring the proceedings of the 2nd respondent in Rc.No.HR/14/EGS/DWMA/2017, DT.26-8-2019 appointing the 5th respondent as Field Assistant in the place of the petitioner under Mahatma Gandhi National Rural Employment Guarantee Scheme as wholly illegal, arbitrary and in violation of Principles of Natural Justice and consequently set aside the proceedings of the 2nd respondent dt.26-8-2019 and to pass…” 2. Heard Sri K.Venkatesh, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri M.S.R.Chandra Murthy, learned Special Counsel for NREGS. 3. It is submitted that subsequent to the writ petition, petitioner made a representation along with interim order of the High Court to the 2nd respondent i.e., District Collector. Thereupon, the 2nd respondent issued a notice for hearing of the appeal on 15.11.2019 and considered the appeal filed by the petitioner in accordance with law and issued proceedings vide RC.No.HR/08/EGS/DWMA/2018, dated 18.11.2019 rejecting the appeal of the writ petitioner but the writ petitioner did not challenge the proceedings. Further, subsequent to filing of the writ petition, the 5th respondent was also terminated by the Government and in view also the writ petition has become infructuous. 4 4. Learned counsel for the writ petitioner would submit that in the above circumstances, the writ petition may be closed giving liberty to the petitioner to hesitate about the proceedings of the 2nd respondent in accordance with law. 5. Considering the above facts and circumstances, the writ petition is disposed of. The petitioner is at liberty to challenge the proceedings of the 2nd respondent in accordance with law. As a sequel thereto, interlocutory applications, if any, pending in this Writ Petition shall stand closed. ______________________________ JUSTICE B.V.L.N. CHAKRAVARTHI 09.10.2025 Pmk 5 18 THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE B.V.L.N. CHAKRAVARTHI WRIT PETITION No:13147 OF 2019 Date: 09.10.2025 Pmk