IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) TUESDAY, THE SIXTEENTH DAY OF SEPTEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND EIGHT PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE R.SUBHASH REDDY WRIT PETITION No: 20381 of 2000 Between: T.G. Saheb, S/o. T.G. Saheb, R/o. Kurnool, Kurnool District. ..... PETITIONER AND 1 The Secretary to Government, Transport Department, Government of Andhra Pradesh, Secretariat Buildings, Hyderabad. 2 The A.P.S.R.T.C., Rep. by its Managing Director, Musheerabad, Hyderabad. 3 The Depot Manager, A.P.S.R.T.C., Kurnool-I Depot, Kurnoo District. 4 The Chief Inspector (Enquiry) A.P.S.R.T.C., Regional Manager's Office, A.P.S.R.T.C., Kurnool. .....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 an order or direction more particularly one in the Natyure of Writ of Mandamus declaring the action of the respondents not following the Andhra Pradesh Departmental Inquiries Enforcement of Attendece, Witness and Production of Documents Act, 1993 and nominating the 4th Respondent Chief Inspector as Enquiry Oﬃcer in his proceedings respondent Chief Inspector as Enquiry Oﬃcer in his proceedings No.01/95(80)/2000-KNL-I dt.16-8-2000 who is not having the knowledge of powers of Civil Court under the Code of Civil Prosedure, 1908 while trying a suit and the knowledge of code of Criminal Prosedure, 1973 to conduct the departmental enquiry as per the provisions of law in the matters of namely Summoning and Enforcing the Attendence of Witness and Exdamining them on Oaths and receiving evidences on Aﬃdavit and calling the public record from any oﬃce as illega, arbitrary and against the principles of Natural Justice and contrary to the law and set aside the proceedings of the 3rd Respondent No.01/95(80)/2000-KNL- dt.16-8-2000, consequently direct the 1st Respondent to appoint the competent enquirying authority as per law and pass such other order or orders as this Hon'ble Court deem ﬁt and proper. Counsel for the Petitioner:MR.S.A.K.MYNUDDIN Counsel for the Respondent No.: SMT.W.V.S.RAJESWARI The Court made the following : ORDER: The learned counsel for petitioner submits that the subject matter of the writ petition has become infructuous. Accordingly, the writ petition is dismissed as infructuous. No order as to costs. _______________________ R.SUBHASH REDDY, J September 16, 2008 CVRK