APHC010951562018 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3333] MONDAY, THE 27th DAY OF JULY 2026 PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SMT JUSTICE V.SUJATHA WRIT PETITION NO: 45966/2018 Between: 1. TARRA VENKATARAMANA, S/O. LATE APPARAO, AGED 38 YEARS, OCC. SEVAKA IN SRIPADA SRI VALLABHA MAHA SAMSTHANAM, PITAUPRAM, EAST GODAVARI DISTRICT, R/O. D.NO.8-1/34, PALLAPA VEEDHI, PITHAPURAM, EAST GODAVARI DISTRICT. 2. BHAMIDIPATI VENKATA SANTHOSA LAKSHMI, W/O. BH.S.N.DATTU, AGED 32 YEARS, OCC. COMPUTER OPERATOR IN SRIPADA SRI VALLABHA MAHA SAMSTHANAM, PITAUPRAM, EAST GODAVARI DISTRICT, R/ O. D.NO.12-2-17, BARUVARI STREET, NEAR MADHAVA SWAMY TEMPLE, PITHAPURAM, EAST GODAVARI DISTRICT. 3. K.SRINIVAS, S/O. PAPA RAO, AGED 28 YEARS, OCC. ELECTRICIAN IN SRIPADA SRI VALLABHA MAHA SAMSTHANAM, PITAUPRAM, EAST GODAVARI DISTRICT, R/O. SEETHAMPETA, SANKAVARAM MANDAL, EAST GODAVARI DISTRICT. 4. V.VEERABABU, S/O. ABBULU, AGED 33 YEARS, OCC. WATCHMAN IN SRIPADA SRI VALLABHA MAHA SAMSTHANAM, PITAUPRAM, EAST GODAVARI DISTRICT, R/O. D.NO.94/78, PITHAPURAM, KATHULAGUDEM. 5. A.SATYA SRINIVASA RAO, S/O. APPA RAO, AGED 29 YEARS, OCC. GOPALAKUDU IN SRIPADA SRI VALLABHA MAHA SAMSTHANAM, PITAUPRAM, EAST GODAVARI DISTRICT, SANKAVARAM MANDAL, EAST GODAVARI DISTRICT. 2 VS,J W.P.No.45966 of 2018 6. K.G.PATHI, S/O. RAMBABU, AGED 36 YEARS, OCC. ASSISTANT MANAGER IN SRIPADA SRI VALLABHA MAHA SAMSTHANAM, PITAUPRAM, EAST GODAVARI DISTRICT, R/O. MAHARSHI VIDHYANIKETAN SCHOOL, PEKKA ATREYAPURAM, EAST GODAVARI DISTRICT. ...PETITIONER(S) AND 1. THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH, REP. BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY, ENDOWMENTS DEPARTMENT, SECRETARIAT, VELAGAPUDI, AMARAVATHI, GUNTUR. 2. THE COMMISSIONER, ENDOWMENTS DEPARTMENT, ANDHRA PRADESH, GOLLAPUDI, VIJAYAWADA, KRISHNA DISTRICT. 3. SRIPADA SRI VALLABHA MAHA SAMSTHANAM, PITAUPRAM, EAST GODAVARI DISTRICT, REP. BY ITS EXECUTIVE OFFICER. 4. SRIPADA SRI VALLABHA SEVA SANGHAM, PITAUPRAM, EAST GODAVARI DISTRICT, REP. BY ITS EXECUTIVE OFFICER. 5. SRI VEERA VENKATA SATYANARAYANA SWAMY TEMPLE, ANNAVARAM, EAST GODAVARI, REP. BY ITS EXECUTIVE OFFICER. ...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 toto issue a writ order or direction more particularly, one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus, declaring the action of the respondents 3 and 4 in directing the petitioners orally not to attend the duties w.e.f., 01.07.2018 without issuing any notice and without issuing any orders in writing as bad, illegal, arbitrary, improper, unjust, violative of principles of natural justice, violative of Articles 14, 19 and 21 of Constitution of India and consequently direct the respondents 3 and 4 to allow the petitioners to discharge their duties and pay the salaries from August, 2018 and grant all consequential benefits including the monetary benefits and grant IA NO: 1 OF 2018 3 VS,J W.P.No.45966 of 2018 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 respondents 3 and 4 to allow the petitioners to discharge their duties forthwith in the respective posts held by them by considering the representation dated. 20.08.2018 submitted by the petitioners, pending disposal of the writ petition and pass Counsel for the Petitioner(S): 1. V S K RAMA RAO Counsel for the Respondent(S): 1. K MADHAVA REDDY (SC FOR ENDOWMENTS AR) 2. GP FOR ENDOWMENTS (AP) 3. ELEVATED AS JUDGE The Court made the following: 4 VS,J W.P.No.45966 of 2018 ORDER: When the writ petition came up for hearing on 17.07.2026, there was no representation on behalf of counsel for the petitioners, as such, the matter was directed to be posted to 20.07.2026. Even on 20.07.2026, as there was no representation on behalf of the petitioners, the matter was posted to 27.07.2026, under the caption ‘for dismissal’. Today, though the matter is listed under the caption ‘for dismissal’, there was no representation on behalf of counsel for the petitioners. It seems that the petitioners are not evincing any interest in pursuing the matter. In view of the same, this writ petition is dismissed for default. There shall be no order as to costs. Consequently, Miscellaneous Petitions, if any, pending in this Petition shall stand closed. _____________________ JUSTICE V.SUJATHA 27.07.2026 Gss