Konda Bhagyalakshmi, v. The Divisional Engineer (Operation)

\ 132521 HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) THURSDAY, THE SEVENTEENTH DAY OF OCTOBER TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FOUR PRESENT THE HONOURABLE MRS JUSTICE SUREPALLI NANDA WRIT PETITION NO:38732 OF 2015 Between:

Konda Bhagyalakshmi, Wo. Sri K.Satyanarayana, aged 60 years, Occ House Wire, R/o. Nellore, Rep. by her son K. Siva Kumar, S/o. Sri K. Satyanarayana, aged 42 years, as General Power of Attorney Holder R/o. Hyderabad. ..PETITIONER AND The Divisional Engineer (Operation), Kukatpally, APCPDCL (Now known as TSSCPDCL) Suraram Mandal, E Seva Building, Near JNTUC Road, Kukatpally, R.R. District, Hyderabad.

The Superintendent Engineer, Operation, Kukatpally, APCPDCL (Now known as TSCPDCL) Suraram Mandal, Ranga Reddy North Circle, 132 l<\l, Gunrock Sub-Station, Thirumalghery, Secunderabad.

...RESPONDENTS Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of lndia praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed therewith, the High Court may be pleased to issue appropriate writ order Or direction more particularly a writ of mandamus and declare the action of the. Respondent in keeping the representation of the Petitioner dated 22-4-2014 as pending and not disposing even lapsing one and half year time as illegal, arbitrary and consequently direct the- respondent to dispose Of the representation dated 22-4-2O 14 by fixing certain- time in the interest of justice and issue any other appropriate, writ, order or direction as the Hon'ble court may deem just and proper in the circumstances of the case Counsel for the Petitioner: SRI ARAVINDU MATURI Counsel for the Respondents: SRI R.VINOD REDDY, SC FOR TSSCPDCL The Court made the following: ORDER

'7 HON'BLE MRS JUSTICE SUREPALLI NANDA WRIT PETITION No.387 32 0F 2015 ORDER:

Heard Sri Aravind Maturi, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner and Sri R. Vinod Reddy, learned Standing Counsel for TSSCPDCL appearing on behalf of respondent Nos.l and 2.

2. The petitioner approached the Court seeking prayer as under:

" ...to issue appropriate writ order or direction more particularly a Writ of Mandamus and declare the action of the Respondent in keeping the representation of the Petitioner dated 22-4-2014 as pending and not disposing even lapsing one and half year time as illegal, arbitrary and consequently direct the respondent to dispose of the representation dated 22-4-2014 by fixing certain time in the \ interest of justice and issue any other appropriate writ order or direcEion as the Honble court may deem just and proper in the circumstances of the case".

3. It is represented by Sri R. Vinod Reddy, learned Standing Counsel for TSSCPDCL appearing on behalf of respondent Nos.1 and 2 that the cause of action in the

rl SN. J wP 18732 2015 present writ petition does not survive for adjudication any more, since the issue pertains to the disposal of the representation of the petitioner dated 22.04.2014. The said submission of the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondents is not disputed by the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner.

4.

Bringing the said submission of the learned Standing Counset appearing on behalf of the respondents on record, the Writ petition is dismissed as infructuous. However, there shall be no order as to costs.

As a sequel, the miscellaneous petitions , if any, pending in the Writ Petition shall also stand closed. sD/- N. ShlHARl ASSTSTANT R€G/STRAR //TRUE COPY// sEclor.)UFFIcER To, One CC to SRI ARAVINDU MATURI, Advocate [OPUCI One CC to SRI R.VINOD REDDY, SC FOR TSSCPDCL [OPUC] Two CD Copies BSR LS w

. - P.=-=.=--:= HIGH COURT DATED: 17110t2024 v .$ 'l a I t ,tv \\ t o ua

ORDER

o oc ircrH * WP.No.38732 of 2O1S DISMISSING THE WRIT PETITION AS INFRUCTUOUS, WTHOUT COSTS 0v M.