Disposed

Vegi Govindarajulu, Visakhapatnam v. Prl Secy, Industries and Commerce (Sugar and Ifr) Dept. Hyd AND3OT

Andhra Pradesh HC15 Sept 2023WP/27805/2015

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court closed Writ Petition No. 27805 of 2015 challenging the petitioner's retirement by superannuation at age 58. The court held the petition was closed as the relief sought was no longer necessary due to the petitioner's subsequent retirement.

What did the court decide?

Retired petitioner's writ petition closed without costs as relief sought was accomplished by subsequent retirement.

Vegi Govindarajulu, Visakhapatnam Vs Prl Secy… — Service and Employment | Andhra Pradesh HC (2023)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH :: AMARAVATI

¶2

(Special Original Jurisdiction)

¶3

FRIDAY, THE FIFTEENTH DAY OF SEPTEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY THREE

¶4

PRESENT

¶5

THE HONOURABLE MS JUSTICE B S BHANUMATHI

¶6

WRIT PETITION NO: 27805 OF 2015

¶7

Between:

¶8

Sri Vegi Govindarajulu, S/o. Venkataramana, aged 58 years R/o. Post & Village : Etikoppaka, Mandat -Yelamanchili, District: Visakhapatnam - 531082.

¶9

...PETITIONER

¶10

AND

¶11

State of Andhra Pradesh, rep by its Principal Secretary, Industries & Commerce (Sugar & IFR) Department Secretariat, Hyderabad.

¶12

Director of Sugar & Cane Commissioner, State of Andhra Pradesh Hyderabad.

¶13

Commissioner for Cooperative & Registrar of Cooperative, Societies, A.P Hyderabad.

¶14

The Etikoppaka Cooperative Agriculture Industrial Society Ltd, Rep. by its Managing Director Darlapudi - Village, S Rayavaram - Mandal District: Visakhapatnam - 531082.

¶15

...RESPONDENTS

¶16

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 a Writ of Mandamus or any other appropriate Writ, Order or Orders, Direction or Directions to declare the action of the 4th Respondent in retiring the petitioner by way of superannuation with effect from 31.8.2015 on his reaching the age of 58 years as illegal, unconstitutional and unreasonable and to direct the 4th Respondent to continue the petitioner in service till his attaining the age of 60 years with all benefits.

¶17

I.A. NO: 1 OF 2015(WPMP. NO: 36080 OF 2015)

¶18

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 direct the 4th Respondent to continue the petitioner in service upto the age of 60 years on the same terms and conditions, pending disposal of the Writ Petition,

¶19

I.A. NO: 1 OF 2016(WVMP. NO: 1831 OF 2016)

¶20

Between:

¶21

The Etikoppaka Cooperative Agriculture Industrial Society Ltd, Rep. by its Managing Director Darlapudi - Village, S Rayavaram - Mandal District: Visakhapatnam - 531082,

¶22

...Vacate Petitioner/R4

¶23

AND

¶24

¶25

Sri Vegi Govindarajulu, S/o. Venkataramana, aged 58 years R/o. Post & Village : Etikoppaka, Mandal -Yelamanchiii, District: Visakhapatnam - 531082,

¶26

... Respondent / Writ Petitioner

¶27

State of Andhra Pradesh, rep by its Principal Secretary, Industries & Commerce (Sugar & IFR) Department Secretariat, Hyderabad.

¶28

Director of Sugar & Cane Commissioner, State of Andhra Pradesh Hyderabad.

¶29

Commissioner for Cooperative & Registrar of Cooperative, Societies, A.P Hyderabad.

¶30

Respondents / Respondents

¶31

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 vacate the interim order dated: 31.08.2015 passed in WP.No.27805/2015 and dismiss the above writ petition in the interest of justice.

¶32

Counsel for the Petitioner(s) : SRI. VEDULA SRINIVAS

¶33

Counsel for the Respondent No.3 : GP FOR COOPERATION

¶34

Counsel for the Respondents 1 & 2 : GP FOR INDUSTRIES & COMMERCE

¶35

Counsel for the Respondent No.4 : SRI VIVEK CHANDRA SEKHAR S

¶36

The Court made the following: ORDER

¶37

/ Z

¶38

HON’BLE Ms. JUSTICE B.S.BHANUMATHI

¶39

WRIT PETITION No.27805 OF 2015

¶40

ORDER:

¶41

This writ petition filed under Article 226 of Constitution of India seeking the following relief:

¶42

“to issue a Writ of Mandamus or any other appropriate Writ, Order or Orders, Direction or Directions to declare the action of the 4* Respondent in retiring the petitioner by way of superannuation with effect from 31.8.2015 on his reaching the age of 58 years as illegal, unconstitutioned and unreasonable and to direct the 4'” Respondent to continue the petitioner in service till his attaining the age of 60 years with aU benefits....”

¶43

2. Ms. P. Priyanvita, learned counsel representing the learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that there is no need to hear the petition in view of the retirement of the petitioner subsequent to filing of the petition.

¶44

Sri G. Viswanath, learned Assistant Government Pleader for respondent No.4 is present.

¶45

The petitioner, who was aged 58 years as on the date of filing of writ petition in the year 2015, was granted the interim relief directing the respondents to continue the petitioner in , service until further orders.

BS8,J

WP.No.27805 of 2015

5. Since, the relief for which the petition was filed is accomplished, the Writ Petition is closed.

¶50

No costs.

¶51

As a sequel, miscellaneous applications pending, if any,

¶52

shall stand closed.

¶53

SD/- M. PADMALATHA ASSISTANT REGISTRAR

¶54

►

¶55

■Po

¶56

//TRUE COPY// ^SE(^ION OFFICER

¶57

One CC to SRI. VEDULA SRINiVAS Advocate [OPUCl ?• *^'9^ Court of Andhra Pradesh. [OUT] 3. Court of Andhra r iduesn. |[^U 11 5 Thrte CD°C^op'esCHANDRA SEKHAR S Advocate [OPUC] Madhu

¶58

HIGH COURT

¶59

DATED:! 5/09/2023

¶60

ORDER

¶61

WP.No.27805 of 2015

¶62

g 2 4 NOV 2023
. Current Section .

¶63

CLOSING THE WP WITHOUT COSTS

Vegi Govindarajulu, Visakhapatnam v. Prl Secy, Industries and Commerce (Sugar and Ifr) Dept. Hyd AND3OT

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Vegi Govindarajulu, Visakhapatnam v. Prl Secy, Industries and Commerce (Sugar and Ifr) Dept. Hyd AND3OT

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Velagapudi Venkateswara Rao Vs Velagapudi Damayanthi (died)

Ess Ess Vee Constructions Vs Chilikuri Adarsh

The Official Liquidator Vs nil

Deputy General Manager, Vs Presiding Officer

Bathula Narasimha Rao Vs V.R.S. and Y.R.N. College, Chirala

R.Mythraiye Vs Mssv Satyanarayana