Yedlapalli Adinarayana Murthy Vs .The State of Andhra Pradesh

YEDLAPALLI ADINARAYANA MURTHY, S/O.CHINA KONDALA RAO AGED ABOUT 60 YEARS, OCC: PROHIBITION AND EXCISE SUPERINTENDENT SRIKAKULAM DISTRICT, SRIKAKULAM, A.P.

¶13

...PETITIONER

¶14

AND

¶15

THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH, REP.BY ITS SPECIAL CHIEF SECRETARY REVENUE (EXCISE) DEPARTMENT A.P. SECRETARIAT, VELAGAPUDI AMARAVATI, GUNTUR DISTRICT.

¶16

THE COMMISSIONER OF PROHIBITION AND EXCISE, ANDHRA PRADESH, VIJAYAWADA

¶17

THE A P STATE BEVERAGES CORPORATION LIMITED PROHIBITION AND EXCISE COMPLEX, R.S.NO.88-2B PRASADAMPADU, VIJAYAWADA, NTR DISTRICT REP.BY ITS MANAGING DIRECTOR.

¶18

S SANKARAIAH, S/O AND AGE NOT KNOWN TO THE PETITIONER OCC. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF PROHIBITION AND EXCISE (VIGILANCE) AND DEPOT MANAGER (FAC), IMFL DEPOT, SRIKAKULAM, SRIKAKULAM DISTRICT

¶19

...RESPONDENT(S):

¶20

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 a writ of mandamus declaring the action of the 1st respondent in issuing Meme No.REV01-CPEOMISC/403/2022- Excise dated 19-04-2023 wherein directed. the 2nd respondent not to post the petitioner as Depot Manager, APSBCL ignoring the earlier Memo No.REV01-CPEOMISC/403/2022-Excise dt.04-04-2023 wherein posted him as District Prohibition and Excise Officer/Depot Manager, APSBCL, Srikakulam in the vacancy arised due to VRS of Ch.Dasu, District Prohibition and Excise Superintendent/Depot Manager, IMFL Depot, Srikakulam is illegal, arbitrary, unjust, discriminatory, violative of Article 14 of Constitution of India and contraIy to GO Ms No. 343 Revenue (Excise) Department dated 12-11-2020 and consequently set aside the memo dated 19-04-2023 of the 1St respondent in so far as posting the petitioner except as Depot Manager, APSBCL, Srikakulam by directing the respondents to implement the earlier orders dated 04-04-2023 in toto issued in Memo No. REV01-CPEOMISC/403/2022-Excise of the 1st respondent, and pass

¶21

IA NO: 1 OF 2023

¶22

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 to issue posting orders of Depot Manager, APSBCL, Srikakulam, in favour of the petitioner, enabling him to discharge his duties along with DPEO, Srikakulam, by suspending the Memo No.REV01-CPEO MISC/403/2022-Excise Dt.19-04-2023 of the 1st respondent in so far as posting the petitioner except as Depot Manager, APSBCL, Srikakulam, pending disposal of the above writ petition and pass

¶23

Counsel for the Petitioner:

¶24

1.KAVITHA GOTTIPATI

¶25

Counsel for the Respondent(S):

¶26

1.DEVARAKONDA VENKATAIAH

¶27

2.GP FOR SERVICES I

¶28

The Court made the following:

¶29

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE BALAJI MEDAMALLI

¶30

WRIT PETITION NO: 12859/2023

¶31

ORDER:

¶32

1. The present Writ Petition is filed challenging the action of respondent No.1 in issuing Memo No.REV01-CPEOMISC/403/2022-Excise, dated 19.04.2023, whereby respondent No.2 was directed not to post the petitioner as Depot Manager, APSBCL, notwithstanding the earlier Memo No.REV01-CPEOMISC/403/2022-Excise, dated 04.04.2023, under which the petitioner had been posted as District Prohibition and Excise Officer/Depot Manager, APSBCL, Srikakulam, against the vacancy that arose on account of the voluntary retirement (VRS) of Sri Ch. Dasu, District Prohibition and Excise Superintendent/Depot Manager, IMFL Depot, Srikakulam.

¶33

2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that, subsequent to the filing of the present Writ Petition, the petitioner has retired from service. It is further submitted that, in view of the said subsequent development, the grievance raised in the Writ Petition no longer survives for adjudication.

¶34

3. Recording the said submission, this Court is of the view that no further orders are required to be passed in the matter.

¶35

4. Accordingly, the Writ Petition is dismissed as infructuous . There shall be no order as to costs.

¶36

Interim orders, if any, granted earlier shall stand vacated, and all pending miscellaneous petitions, if any, shall stand closed.

¶37

__________________________ JUSTICE BALAJI MEDAMALLI

¶38

Date: 06.07.2026 SAK

¶39

Whether the order is: