IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) THURSDAY, THE EIGHTEENTH DAY OF SEPTEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND EIGHT PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE C.V.RAMULU WRIT PETITION NO : 4559 of 2006 Between: B. Adinarayna Sastry, S/o. Raghunatha Sastry, Haliya Branch, Nalgonda District, C/o. ch. Muthyalu,Fruit Market Road, Haliya, Temporarily residingat H.NO. 16-11-741/O/96Plot No.101,Krushi Residency,Shalivahana Nagar Main Road,Moosaram Bagh, Dilsukhnagar, Hyderabad. ..... PET IT IONER AND 1 The Chairman, Nagarjuna Grameena Bank, P.B.No. 6, Illendu Cross Road, Khammam, Khammam District. 2 The Enquiry Officer, Area Manager, Area Officer, Nagarjuna Grameena Bank, Bhongir, Nalgonda 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, order or direction more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus to declare the entire enquiry held by the 2nd respondent inpursuance to the proceedings ref. No. v&DP/227/103/04 dt. 16-6-2004 on the ﬁle of the 1st respondent as vitiated as the same being violation of principles of natural justice, unjust, unreasonable, arbitrary and illegal and consequently direct the 1st respondent to cause/conduct denova enquiry with any other oﬃcial other than the 2nd respondent and to pass such other order or orders as the Hon'ble Court may deem fit and proper. Counsel for the Petitioner:MR.M.VENKAT RAM REDDY Counsel for the Respondent No.: . The Court made the following : THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE C.V.RAMULU W.P.No.4559 of 2006 ORAL ORDER: This writ petition is ﬁled challenging the very enquiry contemplated against the petitioner by the respondent Bank. Though the writ petition was admitted on 10.3.2006, no interim order was granted. Now it is more than two and half years since the writ petition is pending and no purpose would be served by going into merits and demerits of the enquiry at this stage. The learned counsel for respondents states that the respondents would have passed ﬁnal orders by this time. In view of the same, the writ petition is dismissed as having become infructuous. However, it is open to the petitioner to raise all the grounds that were raised in this writ petition while ﬁling any writ petition being aggrieved by the ﬁnal orders, if any passed by the respondents. No order as to costs. Accordingly, the writ petition is dismissed. No order as to costs. ____________ C.V.RAMULU, J Date: 18.9.2008 DA THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE C.V.RAMULU W.P.No.4559 of 2006 18.9.2008