High Court for State of TelanganaWP/1381/2004dismissed as infructuous

V.S. Prakasa Rao, S/O. Suryanarayana, v. The Vice-Chairman And Managing Director,

2015-12-17Dilip B. Bhosale,S.V.Bhatt3 pages

HON'BLE THE ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE DILIP B. BHOSALE AND HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE S.V. BHATT WRIT PETITION No. 1381 OF 2004 17-12-2015 Between:

V.S. Prakasa Rao ... Petitioner And The Vice-Chairman and Managing Director, Sports Authority of Andhra Pradesh, Hyderabad and another ... Respondents

HON'BLE THE ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE DILIP B. BHOSALE AND HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE S.V. BHATT WRIT PETITION No. 1381 OF 2004 ORDER: (per the Hon'ble the Acting Chief Justice Dilip B. Bhosale) Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned counsel for the respondents.

The petitioner, in the instant writ petition, seeks the following relief:

"For the reasons stated in the accompanying Affidavit, it is prayed that this Hon'ble Court may be pleased to issue an order, direction or an appropriate writ more particularly in the nature of Writ of Mandamus directing the respondents to continue the petitioner in the post in which he is now continuing by holding that the orders issued in G.O.Ms.No.171, Youth Advancement, Tourism, Culture (Sports) Department dt.12.12.2003 of the second respondent and the consequential proceedings Rc.No.SAAP/Estt.3/511/2003, dt.31.12.2003 of the first respondent is illegal, arbitrary and unjustified and violative of articles 14, 16 and 21 of the Constitution of India and the law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court and this Hon'ble Court and quash the same and pass such other orders or order as this Hon'ble Court may deem fit and proper in the circumstances of the case."

When the writ petition was filed, the petitioner was 57 years old. It is not in dispute that an interim order was passed by this Court on 23-01-2004, as prayed for. After the said order, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the rules came to be amended and once again the respondents tried to implement impugned G.O.Ms.No.171, dated 12-12-2003 by way of amendment of the rules. The amended

rules are not under challenge.

Thereafter, the petitioner did not seek any interim order or challenged the rules and in the meantime he retired. In view thereof, the writ petition, in our opinion, has rendered infructuous and disposed of as such.

Miscellaneous petition, if any, also stand disposed of. No order as to costs.

_________________________ DILIP B. BHOSALE, ACJ ________________________ S.V. BHATT, J 17-12-2015 ks