S RAMESH, CHITTOOR DIST v. MD, APSRTC, HYDERABAD & 2 OTHERS
WP/10373/2017 · 2026-01-29
Maheswara Rao Kuncheam
body2026
DailyLaw.ai
[ 2026 DAILYLAW 24977 (AP) · dailylaw.ai ]
DailyLaw.ai
[ 2026 DAILYLAW 24977 (AP) · dailylaw.ai ]
Judgment text
Extracted from the PDF above. The PDF is authoritative.
APHC010526452017
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3504] FRIDAY, THE THIRTIETH DAY OF JANUARY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY SIX PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE MAHESWARA RAO KUNCHEAM WRIT PETITION NO: 10373/2017 Between:
1. S RAMESH, CHITTOOR DIST, S/O VEERAIAH, AGED 29 YEARS, OCC: DRIVER, R/O AMBUVARIPALLI VILLAGE, H/O GURATALAPALLI VILLAGE, K.V. PALLI MANDAL, CHITTOOR DISTRICT.
...PETITIONER AND
1. MD APSRTC HYDERABAD 2 OTHERS, REP. BY ITS MANAGING DIRECTOR, RTC X ROADS, MUSHEERABAD, HYDERABAD.
2. THE REGIONAL MANAGER, APSRTC, TIRUPATHI.
3. THE DEPOT MANAGER, KUPPAM DEPOT, CHITTOOR 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 too issue a writ, order or direction more particularly one in the nature of WRIT OF MANDAMUS declaring the action of the 2nd respondent in not deciding petitioner's appeal dated 10.12.2016 against the proceedings of the 3rd respondent dated 29.09.2016 and not providing alternative employment and not paying his salary and allowances as illegal, irregular, arbitrary, contrary to the provisions of the The Rights of Persons with Disabilities Act, 2016 and violative of articles 14 and 21 of Constitution of India and consequently direct the respondents 2 and 3 to release petitioner's salary and arrears from November 2016 and direct the 2nd respondent to decide petitioner appeal dated 10.12.2016
2
Counsel for the Petitioner:
1. KODATI RAMYA KRISHNA Counsel for the Respondent(S):
1. ARAVALA RAMA RAO
2. K VISWANATHAM (SC FOR APSRTC) The court made the following ORDER:-
When the matter is called, Sri M. Solomon Raju, learned counsel representing the learned counsel for the petitioner, submits that in view of the subsequent events occurred in the lis, the cause in the writ petition does not survive for adjudication. Accordingly, he submits that the matter has become infructuous.
2. Recording the above said submissions, the writ petition is dismissed as infructuous.
There shall be no order as to costs. As a sequel, all pending applications shall stand closed.
_______________________________ JUSTICE MAHESWARA RAO KUNCHEAM Date: 30.01.2026 GVK
3
27
THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE MAHESWARA RAO KUNCHEAM
WRIT PETITION No.10373 of 2017
Date: 30.01.2026
GVK