APHC010838462016 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3504] THURSDAY, THE EIGHTH DAY OF JANUARY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY SIX PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE MAHESWARA RAO KUNCHEAM WRIT PETITION NO: 44834/2016 Between: 1. KANNA VENKATA SUBBAIAH,, S/O. RAMANAIAH, AGED ABOUT 32 YEARS, R/ O. KONDUR VILLAGE, VAKADU MANDAL, SPSR NELLORE DISTRICT. ...PETITIONER AND 1. THE ANDHRA PRADESH SOUTHERN POWER DISTRIBUTION, COMPANY LTD., REPRESENTED BY ITS CHAIRMAN AND MANAGING DIRECTOR, TIRUPATHI, CHITTOOR DISTRICT. 2. THE DIRECTOR A P S P D C L HRD, TIRUPATHI, CHITTOOR DISTRICT. 3. THE CHIEF GENERAL MANAGER HRD A P S P D C L, TIRUPATHI, CHITTOOR DISTRICT. 4. THE SUPERINTENDING ENGINEER OPERATIONS A P S P D C L, VIDYUTH BHAVAN, AK NAGAR, DARGAMITTA, NELLORE. 5. THE DIVISIONAL ENGINEER / OPERATIONS A P S P D C L, OPP TO COURT BUILDING, GUDUR, SPSR NELORE DISTRICT. 6. THE ASSISTANT ACCOUNTS OFFICER E R O GUDUR, SPSR NELLORE DISTRICT. 7. THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH REP BY ITS PRINCIPLE, SECRETARY ( ENERGY DEPARTMENT ), SECRETARIAT BUILDINGS, VELAGUPUDI, THULLUR MANDAL, GUNTUR DISTRICT. 2 8. THE CHAIRMAN MANAGING DIRECTOR A P TRANSCO, VIDYUT SOUDHA, HYDERABAD ...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 toIssue an order, writ or direction more particularly in the nature of Writ of Mandamus, to declare the action of the respondents in not reinstating the petitioner into service as illegal and unreasonable and further direct the respondents to reinstate the petitioner into service as per rules and pass Counsel for the Petitioner: 1. V ROOPESH KUMAR REDDY Counsel for the Respondent(S): 1. Y.NAGI REDDY (APSPDCL) 2. GP FOR ENERGY (AP) 3. Venkata Rama Rao Kota SC FOR APSPDCL The court made the following ORDER: The writ petition is filed under Article 226 of Constitution of India, seeking the following main prayer:- “…..to declare the action of the respondents in not reinstating the petitioner into service as illegal and unreasonable and further direct the respondents to reinstate the petitioner into service as per rules and pass….” 2. When the matter is called, there is no representation for the petitioner. 3. On the other side, Sri Kota Venkata Rama Rao, learned Standing Counsel for the respondent Corporation submits that consequent to the interim orders dated 22.12.2016 passed by this Court, the petitioner was 3 reinstated into respondent Corporation on 31.01.2017 and the writ petition has become infructuous. 4. Recording the submission made by the learned counsel for the respondent Corporation that the petitioner was reinstated into service and in view of the fact that the cause in the lis has already been fulfilled. Hence, the writ petition is disposed of. There shall be no order as to costs. As a sequel, all pending applications shall stand closed. _______________________________ JUSTICE MAHESWARA RAO KUNCHEAM Date: 08.01.2026 GVK 4 33 THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE MAHESWARA RAO KUNCHEAM WRIT PETITION No.44834 of 2016 Date: 08.01.2026 GVK 5