APHC010286982005 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3459] FRIDAY, THE 7th DAY OF AUGUST 2026 PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SMT JUSTICE SUMATHI JAGADAM WRIT PETITION NO: 28040/2005 Between: 1. T.RENUKA DEVI, SRIKAKULAM, W/O.LATE T.V.RAMANA RAO R/O.KATHIRI VEEDHI SRIKAKULAM 532 001 ...PETITIONER AND 1. APSRTC REP BY DIVISIONAL MANAGER SRIKAKULAM ANOTHER, TRANSPORT CORPORATION SRIKAKULAM, REP BY ITS DIVISIONAL MANAGER. 2. THE DEPOT MANAGER, APSRTC PALASA DEPOT. PALASA, SRIKAKULAM 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 toto issue an order direction or writ particularly one in the nature of writ of mandamus or any other appropriate writ declaring the removal order dt.4.1.2004 is illegal and arbitrary; ii) declare the proceedings of the appellate authority dt.13.6.2005 is illegal and arbitrary and consequently direct the respondents to provide employment to the petitioner on compassionate ground and release all the consequential benefits and pass. IA NO: 1 OF 2005(WPMP 35968 OF 2005 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 consider the representations of the petitioner dated 18.7.2005 and 23.8.2005 and pass such other order or orders in the interest of justice. 2 IA NO: 1 OF 2015(WPMP 39074 OF 2015 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 take up out of turn final hearing of the WP and pass. Counsel for the Petitioner: 1. K UDAYA SRI Counsel for the Respondent(S): 1. K SRINIVASA PRASAD SC For APSRTC 3 The Court made the following ORDER: As there was no representation on behalf of the learned counsel for the petitioner on 24.07.2026, the matter was directed to be listed on 31.07.2026 under the caption ‘for dismissal’. On that day, learned counsel for the petitioner requested time. Thereafter, the matter was listed today. Today when the matter is called, learned counsel for the petitioner again requested time. It appears that the learned counsel for the petitioner is not interested to prosecute the case. Therefore, the Writ Petition is dismissed for non-prosecution. There shall be no order as to costs. As a sequel, miscellaneous applications pending, if any, shall stand closed. __________________________________ JUSTICE SUMATHI JAGADAM Dated: 07.08.2026 RSD 4 153 THE HONOURABLE SMT JUSTICE SUMATHI JAGADAM WRIT PETITION NO: 28040/2005 Dated: 07.08.2026 RSD