Research › Search › Judgment

High Court of Andhra Pradesh · body

2026 DAILYLAW 26285 (AP)

P.Abhimanya Raju v. The Managing Director

WP/18573/2013 · 2026-02-03

Harinath N

body2026

Judgment text

Extracted from the PDF above. The PDF is authoritative.

APHC010616272013 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3457] WEDNESDAY,THE FOURTH DAY OF FEBRUARY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY SIX PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE HARINATH.N WRIT PETITION NO: 18573/2013 Between: 1. P.ABHIMANYA RAJU, S/O LATE SEETHARAMA RAJU, AGED 61 YRS, OCC: DEPUTY EXECUTIVE ENGINEER (RETD.) ANDHRA PRADESH STATE COOPERATIVE RURAL IRRIGATION CORPORATION LIMITED, RIO D.NO.6-131/B6, V.R. TOWERS, FLAT NO.206, NEAR VISWAKAVI ROAD, CHINA AMIRAM, BHIMAVARAM- 534 2004 WEST GODAVARI DISTRICT . ...PETITIONER AND 1. THE MANAGING DIRECTOR, Andhra Pradesh State Cooperative Rural Irrigation Corporation Limited, 5-10-193, HACA Bhavan, 1st Floor Opp: Public Gardens, Hyderabad-500 004 ...RESPONDENT 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 more particularly one in the nature of Mandamus declaring the action of the Respondent in issuing the impugned proceedings El/RIC/277/2011/3431, dated 10-10-2012 is illegal, arbitrary, contrary to the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India Judgments and set aside the same and unconstitutional to direct the Respondent Corporation to pay the interest from the date of petitioner's superannuation i.e., 31-05-2011 to 03-06-2013 2 IA NO: 1 OF 2013(WPMP 22690 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 direct the respondent Corporation to pay the interest from the date of petitioner's superannuation i.e., 31.05.2011 to 03.06.2013, pending disposal of the writ petition Counsel for the Petitioner: 1. C H SATISH KUMAR Counsel for the Respondent: 1. The Court made the following: 3 Order:- Despite the matter being listed under the caption for dismissal, today none represented for the petitioner. On earlier occasion also, there is no representation for the petitioner. Therefore, this Writ Petition is dismissed for non-prosecution. There shall be no order as to costs. As a sequel, miscellaneous petitions pending, if any, shall stand closed. ____________________ JUSTICE HARINATH.N 04.02.2026 PNS