IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) MONDAY, THE TWENTY NINTH DAY OF DECEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND EIGHT PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY WRIT PETITION No: 22225 of 2004 BETWEEN: Madugula Janardhana Rao S/o late Ramulu, R/o Quarter No. A4, Pallavapark, Kancharapalem, Visakhapatnam. ... PETITIONER AND 1 The Commodore Chief Staff Officer (P&A), Head Quarters, Eastern Navel Command, Naval Base, Visakhapatnam. 2 The Material Superintendent, Materials Organisation, Head Quarters, Eastern Navel Command, Naval Base, Visakhapatnam. ...RESPONDENTS Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying that in the circumstances stated in the Affidavit filed herein the High Court may be pleased to issue a Writ, order or direction more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus declaring the action of the respondents in imposing the penalty of compulsory retirement of the petitioner from the Services vide order in CE/910/40, dated 22-7-2004, is illegal, arbitrary, improper and against the principles of natural justice and consequently direct the respondents to reinstate the petitioner into service and pass such other or orders as this Hon’ble Court may deem fit and proper. Counsel for the Petitioner: MR.P.VADDI Counsel for the Respondents: MR.A.RAJASHEKAR REDDY (ASST SOLICITOR GEN) The Court made the following: ORDER: This writ petition is filed for the following substantial relief: “the High Court may be pleased to issue a Writ, order or direction more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus declaring the action of the respondents in imposing the penalty of compulsory retirement of the petitioner from the Services vide order in CE/910/40, dated 22-7-2004, is illegal, arbitrary, improper and against the principles of natural justice and consequently direct the respondents to reinstate the petitioner into service and pass such other or orders as this Hon’ble Court may deem fit and proper.” 2. Though at the hearing, the learned counsel for the petitioner is not present, a letter has been addressed by the learned counsel to the Registry wherein he mentioned that there is no requirement for the petitioner to pursue this writ petition. In view of the same, the writ petition is accordingly dismissed as withdrawn. There shall be no order as to costs. _____________________ C.V. NAGARJUNA REDDY, J December 29, 2008 DSK