APHC010049412011 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3330] FRIDAY, THE FOURTH DAY OF JULY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE TARLADA RAJASEKHAR RAO WRIT PETITION NO: 7815/2011 Between: 1. J.S.NARAYANA (E.452613), S/O. J.MUTYALU, RETIRED AS SHRAMIK IN APSRTC VISAKHAPATNAM STEEL PLANT R/O. FLAT NO.503, MYTHRI APARTMENTS,SUSARLA COLONY, GOAPAPATNAM VISAKHAPATNAM ...PETITIONER AND 1. THE APSRTC, MANAGING DIRECTOR, MUSHEERABAD, HYDERABAD. 2. THE DEPOT MANAGER APSRTC VISAKHAPATNAM STEEL CITY, DEPOT ,VISAKHAPATNAM DISTRICT 3. THE DEPOT MANAGER APSRTC VISAKHAPATNAM STEEL CITY, DEPOT, VISAKHAPATNAM ...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 appropriate writ order or direction preferably one in the nature of writ of mandamus declaring the action of the respondents in deducting an amount of Rs 50,000/-from out of the pensionary benefits of the petitioner without any notice and without there being any order as arbitrary, highhanded illegal, and contrary to law and consequently direct the respondents to release the said amount of Rs 50,000/- together with the interest of thereon on the petitioner forthwith in the interest of justice. IA NO: 1 OF 2011(WPMP 9718 OF 2011 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 respondents herein to release the amount of Rs 50,000/- which was withhled from out of the pensionary benefits of 2 the petitioner together with interest thereon to the petitioner immediately pending disposal of the main writ petition. Counsel for the Petitioner: 1. R M REDDY Counsel for the Respondent(S): 1. VINOD KUMAR TARLADA The Court made the following: 3 THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE TARLADA RAJASEKHAR RAO WRIT PETITION NO. 7815 of 2011 ORDER: Despite the matter listed under the caption ‘for dismissal’, there is no representation for the petitioner. It evinces that the petitioner has no interest in prosecuting his case. Therefore, the Writ Petition is dismissed for non-prosecution. There shall be no order as to costs. As a sequel thereto, miscellaneous Petitions pending, if any, shall stand closed. ___________________________________ JUSTICE TARLADA RAJASEKHAR RAO Date : 04.07.2025 SPP 4 THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE TARLADA RAJASEKHAR RAO Writ Petition No:7815 of 2011 Date : 04.07.2025 SPP