IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) FRIDAY, THE TWENTY SIXTH DAY OF JUNE TWO THOUSAND AND NINE PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE GODA RAGHURAM And THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE R.SUBHASH REDDY W.P.Nos. 26597; 26653; 26660 and 27375 of 2006 WRIT PETITION NO : 26597 of 2006 Between: 1 P. Bhaskar, S/o. P. Subbanna, C/o. Now District Legal Services Authority, Kadapa, Kadapa District. 2 C.V. Janardhana Rao, S/o. Late Rama Subba Rao, C/o. Junior Civil Judge Nadaloor, Now on deputation at Sr. C.J. Court Rajampet, Kadapa District. 3 Bakke Santhamma, W/o. Naga Raju Raju Naik, C/o. Additional Junior Civil Judge Court, Rayachoti Kadapa District. ..... PETITIONER(S) AND 1 The Registrar-General, High Court of A.P., Hyderabad. 2 The Registrar ( Vigilance), High Court of A.P., Hyderabad. 3 Appointing Authority-District Judge, kadapa District. 4 The District Treasury Officer, Kadapa District. .....RESPONDENT(S) Petition under Article 226 of the constitution of India praying that in the circumstances stated in the Affidavit filed herein the High Court will be pleased to issue a Writ, direction or order particularly one in the natureof writ of Mandmaus declaring the impugned notice dt. 23.11.2006 of the third respondent pursuant to proceedings vide D.O.Lr.No. 1706/06 dt. 22.11.2006 of Second Respondent by recourse to act 2/94 is quite arbitrary, illegal and discriminatory besides subversive of Articles 14, 16, 19, 21 of the Constitution of India and principles of natural justice, to quash the said impugned notice consequently and to pass. Counsel for the Petitioner: MR.R.DHEERAJ SINGH Counsel for the Respondent No.: GP FOR FINANCE & PLANNING WRIT PETITION NO : 26653 of 2006 Between: 1 M.Mallesh S/o.M.Subba Rayudu Junior civil Judge`s court, Nandalur working on deputation at District court Kadapa Kadapa District 2 Syed Imam S/o.Syed Ismail Junior civil Judge` Court, Kamalapur, kadapa District ..... PETITIONER(S) AND 1 The Registrar General High Court of AP., Hyderabad 2 The Registrar (Vigilance) High Court of AP., Hyderabad 3 Appointing Authority, District Judge, Kadapa District 4 The District Treasury Officer, Kadapa District .....RESPONDENT(S) Petition under Article 226 of the constitution of India praying that in the circumstances stated in the Affidavit filed herein the High Court will be pleased to to issue a writ direction or order particularly one in the nature of writ of mandamus declaring the impguend notices dated 23.11.2006 of the third respondent pursuant to proceedings vide D.O.Lr.no.1706/2006 dated 22.11.2006 of second respondent by recourse to act 2/94 is quite arbitrary,illegal, and discriminatory besides subversive of Articles 14,16,19,21 of the constitution of India and principles of natural justice to quash the said impugned notice conseuqnelty and to pass Counsel for the Petitioner:MR.R.DHEERAJ SINGH Counsel for the Respondent No.: G.VIDYASAGAR (SC FOR APHC) WRIT PETITION NO : 26660 of 2006 Between: 1 A.Gangaiah S/o.Bala Ganganna District court, kadapa,Kadapa District 2 G.Surekha W/o.Nagendra Kumar Reddy Excise court, Kadapa,Kadapa District 3 P.Nageswaramma W/o.P.Muthyalaiah Senior Civil Judge`s court, Kadapa,Kadapa District 4 B.Sujatha W/o.B.Ravi II Addl.District Court, Kadapa,Kadapa District 5 B.Penchalamma W/o.Late B.Subrahamanyam Senior civil Judge`s Court,Proddatur Kadapa District ..... PETITIONER(S) AND 1 The Registrar General, High Court of AP., Hyderabad 2 The Registrar (Vigilance), High Court of AP., Hyderabad 3 Appointing Authority-District Judge, Kadapa District 4 The District Treasury Officer, Kadapa District .....RESPONDENT(S) Petition under Article 226 of the constitution of India praying that in the circumstances stated in the Affidavit filed herein the High Court will be pleased to to issue a writ direction or order particularly one in the nature of writ of mandamus declaring the impugned notices dated 23.11.2006 of the third respondent pursuant to proceedings vide D.O.Lr.no.1706/06 dated 22.11.2006 of second respondent by recourse to act 2/94 is quite arbitrary, illegal, and discriminatory, besides subversive of Articles 14,16,19,21 of the constitution of India and principles of natural justice to quash the said impugned notice consequently and to pass Counsel for the Petitioner:MR.R.DHEERAJ SINGH Counsel for the Respondent No.: G.VIDYASAGAR (SC FOR APHC) WRIT PETITION NO : 27375 of 2006 Between: 1 C. VEnkata Subbaiah S/o Jyothappa Masalchi Prl. Jr. Civil Judge, Kadapa. 2 B. Ramanatha Reddy S/o Chinna Gopala Masalchi Prl. Jr. Civil Judge, Sidhout, Kadapa District. ..... PETITIONER(S) AND 1 The Registrar-General High Court of A.P., Hyderabad. 2 The Registrar (Vigilance), High court of A.P., Hyderabad. 3 The Appointing Authority, District Judge, Kadapa District. 4 The District Treasure Officer, Kadapa District. .....RESPONDENT(S) Petition under Article 226 of the constitution of India praying that in the circumstances stated in the Affidavit filed herein the High Court will be pleased to issue a Writ, direction or order particularly one inthe nature of Writ of Mandamus declring the impugned notice dt 23-11-2006 of the 3rd respondent pursuant to proceedings vide D.O., Lr. 1706/06 dt 22-11-2006 of Second respondnet by recourse to act 2/94 is quite arbitrary, illegal, and discriminatory besides subversive of ARticles 14, 16, 19, 21 of the Constitution of India and principles of natural justice and to setaside thesaid impugned notice consequently, and to pass such otherorder or orders as this Hon'ble Court may deem fit and proper circumstances of the case. Counsel for the Petitioner: MR.P.SAI PRASAD Counsel for the Respondent No.: G.VIDYASAGAR (SC FOR APHC) The Court made the following common: THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE GODA RAGHURAM And THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE R. SUBHASH REDDY W.P.Nos. 26597; 26653; 26660 and 27375 of 2006 Oral Common Order: (Per: GR, J) The learned counsel for the petitioners appearing in these writ petitions – Sri R. Dheeraj Singh and Sri P. Sai Prasad – state that these writ petitions are directed against show cause notice and since the institution of the writ petitions, final orders have been passed. In the circumstances, the petitioners seek to withdraw the writ petitions with liberty to challenge the final orders, if so advised. Granting the liberty as sought, the writ petitions are dismissed as ‘withdrawn’. No costs. ____________________ GODA RAGHURAM, J _________________________ R. SUBHASH REDDY, J Dated: 26-06-2009 Pvks