IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD MONDAY, THE SIXTEENTH DAY OF JUNE TWO THOUSAND AND EIGHT PRESENT HON'BLE SRI ANIL R. DAVE, THE CHIEF JUSTICE and THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE R.SUBHASH REDDY WRIT APPEAL NO : 556 of 2008 (Writ Appeal under Clause 15 of the Letters Patent against the Order dated 09/04/2008 in WP NO : 5109 OF 2008 on the file of the High Court.) Between: 1 Coal Mines Provident Fund Organization Rep.by its Commissioner, Jagjevan Nagar Dhanbad, 2 The Regional Commissioner Coal Mines Provident Fund Organization Regional Office Kothagudem, District Khammam (AP) and Regional Office, Godavarikhani Dist,. Khammam (AP). 3 The Regional Commissioner Coal Mines Provident Fund Organization Regional Office Kothapet R.R Dist Hyd ..... APPELLANT(S) AND 1 A.Hanumantha Prasad S/o.A.Balaram Murthy CMPFO Kothapet,R.R Dist Hyderabad. 2 B.Srinivas Rao S/op.Late B.Srinivas Murthy EMPFO., Kothapeta, Ranga Reddy District, Hyderabad. 3 P.L.Prasanna Kumar S/o.Someswar Rao CMPFO. Kothapeta, Ranga Reddy District, Hyderabad. 4 K. Narahari Reddy S/o K. yadav Reddy CMPFO. Kothapeta, Ranga Reddy District, Hyderabad. 5 M. Prakash S/o Late M. Venkata Narsu CMPFO. Kothapeta, Ranga Reddy District, Hyderabad. 6 M. Laxmi Bai W/o M. Ramulu, CMPFO. Kothapeta, Ranga Reddy District, Hyderabad. 7. Secretary, Ministry of Coal, Govt. of India, Shastry Bhavan, New Delhi .....RESPONDENT(S) Counsel for the Appellant:MR.J.PRABHAKAR Counsel for the Respondent No.: MR.SRINIVAS EMANI The Court made the following : JUDGMENT: (Per Anil R. Dave, CJ) Being aggrieved by the order dated 9-4-2008 passed in W.P.No.5109 of 2008, this appeal has been filed. It is an admitted fact that the original petitioners-present respondents did not challenge the orders of suspension. The only grievance which they have made was with regard to non-payment of subsistence allowance. At the time of hearing of this appeal, learned Advocate appearing for the respondents i.e., the original petitioners, has submitted that the original petitioners would likely to challenge the validity of the orders of suspension whereby the petitioners were placed under suspension and also the orders whereunder their Head quarter had been changed. In view of the fact that the orders of suspension had not been challenged in the petition, the learned Advocate appearing for the original petitioners seeks permission to withdraw the writ petition so as to enable the petitioners to file a fresh petition for challenging the orders of suspension. Permission as sought for is granted and as a result thereof, the order passed in W.P.No.5109 of 2008 shall become non-est. The observations made and directions given in the said order shall also not operate. The appeal shall stand disposed of with no order as to costs. _______________________ ANIL R. DAVE, CJ 16th June, 2008 _________________________ R. SUBHASH REDDY, J GRR To 1. 2.2 CD copies