Dismissed¶41

B. Satyananda Kumar v. The Life Insurance Corporation of India

Andhra Pradesh HC1 Jan 2025WP/4463/2018

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

LIC agent allotment; Development Officer; selective allotment of agents; Circular Ref. Mktg/ZD/45/2002 dated 1-7-2002; Letter Ref. Mktg/ZD/19/2009 dt. 10-8-2009; writ of mandamus; Article 226 Constitution of India; Section 151 CPC interim application; P.R.K Naik retired 31-10-2017; dismissed as infructuous; interlocutory applications closed; without costs; High Court of Andhra Pradesh Amaravati; Justice Venkateswarlu Nimmagadda; 2025.

What did the court decide?

None; writ petition dismissed as infructuous without costs. ¶41

B. Satyananda Kumar Vs The Life Insurance… — Writ and Judicial Review | Andhra Pradesh HC (2025)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH :: AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction)

¶2

THURSDAY, THE SECOND DAY OF JANUARY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE

¶3

PRESENT

¶4

THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE VENKATESWARLU NIMMAGADDA ^ WRIT PETITION NO: 4463 OF 2018

¶5

Between:

¶6

B. Satyananda Kumar, S/o. B Balajoji, Aged 54 Years, Occ: Development Officer LIC, SR No. 558950R/O Hindpur, Anantharam District.

¶7

...PETITIONER

¶8

AND

¶9

The Life Insurance Corporation of India, Yogakshema Jeevan Bima Marg, Mumbai, Maharastra State represented by its Chairman

¶10

The Life Insurance Corporation of India, Telangana at Hyderabad 0pp. Secretariat, Saifabad, Hyderabad Rep by its Zonal Manager

¶11

The Senior Divisional Manager, L.I.C of India, Divisional Office, Kadapa 4. The Marketing Manager, L.I.C of India, Divisional Office, Kadapa 5. The Branch Manager, L.I.C of India, Hindupur, Ananthapur Dist. (A. P)

¶12

...RESPONDENTS

¶13

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, order or direction more particularly one in the nature of writ of Mandamus - declaring the action of the respondent no.5 in allotting the agents of Development Officers selectively to the Development Officers of his choice contrary to the Instructions in Circular Ref. Mktg/ZD/45/2002 dated 1-7-2002 and Letter Ref. Mktg/ZD/19/2009^dt.10-8- 2009 as illegal and arbitrary and consequently direct the respondents 3 and 4 to allot the Agents of Development Officers who are promoted/transferred/retired as per the Instructions in Circular Ref.

¶14

Mktg/ZD/45/2002 dated 1-7-2002 and Letter Ref. Mktg/ZD/19/2009^dt.10-8- 2009.

¶15

lANQ: 1 OF 2018

¶16

Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the writ petition, the High Court may be pleased to direct the respondent no. 3 and 4 not to allot the agents of P.R.K Naik Development Officer who retired on 31-10-2017 and other agents of Development Officers likely to retire or promoted, pending disposal of WP in the interest of justice.

¶17

Counsel for the Petitioner : SRI N. SRINIVASA RAO FOR SRI VENUGOPALA RAO PASNOORU

¶18

Counsel for the Respondents: SRI SINGAM SRINIVASA RAO The Court made the following: ORDER

¶19

::1::

¶20

APHC010100562018

¶21

IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI [3329] (Special Original Jurisdiction)

¶22

THURSDAY ,THE SECOND DAY OF JANUARY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE

¶23

PRESENT

¶24

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE VENKATESWARLU NIMMAGADDA

¶25

WRIT PETITION NO: 4463/2018

Between:

B. Satyananda Kumar

...PETITIONER

AND

The Life Insurance Corporation Of India and Others ...RESPONDENT(S)

¶31

Counsel for the Petitioner:

¶32

1.VENUGOPALA RAO PASNOORU

¶33

Counsel for the Respondent(S):

¶34

1.SINGAM SRINIVASA RAO

¶35

¶36

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE VENKATESWARLU NIMMAGADDA

¶37

WRIT PETITION NO:4463 of 2018

¶38

This Court made the following

¶39

ORDER:

¶40

Sri N. Srinivasa Rao, learned counsel representing Sri P. Venugopala Rao, learned counsel for the petitioner^submits that the cause in the writ petition does not survive for further adjudication and hence, the writ petition becomes infructuous.

¶41

In view of the above, the Writ Petition is dismissed as infructuous.

¶42

Consequently, interlocutory applications, if any, pending^inthewrit petition shall stand closed.

¶43

//TRUE COPY//

¶44

Sd/- J. SAROJA ASSISTANT REGISTRAR

¶45

SECTION OFFICER

¶46

¶47