IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) TUESDAY, THE TWENTY FIFTH DAY OF NOVEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND EIGHT PRESENT HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE R.SUBHASH REDDY WRIT PETITION No : 15619 of 1999 BETWEEN: 1 P.Krishnudu, S/o.P.Chinna Ganganna, R/o. Cuddapah. 2 G.V.Nettekall, S/o.G.V.Mallaiah,R/o.Cuddapah. 3 C.Satyanarayana, S/o.C.Lakshmi Narayana, R/o.Tirupathi, Chittoor District. ..... PETITIONERS AND 1 Andhra Pradesh State Road Transport Corporation, Represented by its Managing Director, Mushirabad, Hyderabad-20. 2 Andhra Pradesh State Road Transport Corporation, Represeted by its Executive Director, Cuddapah Zone, Cuddapa-h. 3 Andhra Pradesh State Road Transport Corporation, Rep. by its Dept Manager, Cuddpah Depot, Cuddpah. 4 Smt.B.Vasundhra, W/o.Late B.Nageswaraiah, R/o,.11/105, Devuni Cuddapah Village, Patha Cuddapah Post, Cuddapah District. .....RESPONDENTS 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 call for the records from 2nd and 3rd respondents and issue an appropriate Writ, Order or Direction, particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus, declaring that the action of 3rd respondent in passing the Order in proceedings No.F2/M1/P2/371/(6)/95-CDP, dated 25-6-99 for recovery of amount form the salary of petitioners as illegal, unjust, contrary to law, unjust, contrary to the Circulars issued by the Ist respondent Corporation and violative of Articles 14,16 and 21 of the Constitution of India; and grant all consequential benefits; and pass such other order or orders as deemed fit and proper under the circumstances of the case. Counsel for the Petitioners : MR.A.K.JAYAPRAKASH RAO Counsel for the Respondents : SMT.W.V.S.RAJESWARI The Court made the following : ORDER : Petitioners 1 and 2 are working as Conductors, whereas petitioner No.3 is working as TTI in the Andhra Pradesh State Road Transport Corporation. They have filed this writ petition, questioning the Proceedings dated 25th June 1998 issued in Proceedings No.F2/M1/P2/371(6)/95-CDP, by the 3rd respondent. 2. The petitioners herein were the sureties for the house building loan and marriage loan advance taken by the late husband of respondent No.4. On the ground that the original loanee i.e. Sri B.Nageswariah, the husband of respondent No.4 had died before repaying the loan, to recover the balance due amount from the loanee, the impugned order is passed. By the time the writ petition was filed, certain amounts were also recovered from the salaries of the petitioners. But however, when the matter is taken up, the learned Standing Counsel appearing for the Corporation has produced the record showing subsequent developments in the matter. It is stated that the loan amount of Late Sri Nageswaraiah was already settled by respondent No.4 and the original documents were already released. Further, the statements of the three petitioners were also filed, stating that the respondent No.4 has paid back the amount recovered from their salaries pursuant to the impugned orders. 3. In view of the statement made by the learned Standing Counsel that the loan amount was already cleared by respondent No.4 and even the amounts which were recovered from the salaries of the petitioners are also paid back by respondent No.4 in favour of the petitioners, the question of any further recovery will not arise. 4. In view of the subsequent developments in the matter, no further orders are needed to be passed in this writ petition. 5. The writ petition stands disposed of accordingly. No order as to costs. ______________________ R. SUBHASH REDDY, J 25th November 2008 ajr