IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) FRIDAY, THE FOURTH DAY OF APRIL TWO THOUSAND AND EIGHT PRESENT THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE C.V.RAMULU WRIT PETITION No.10211 of 2005 Between: M. Satyanarayana, S/o. Venkatesu, Pedarayavaram PACS, Rangampeta Mandal, East Godavari Dsitrict. ..... PETITIONER AND 1 The District Cooperative Officer, E.G.District, Kakinada. 2 The Divisional Cooperative Officer, Peddapuram, East Godavari District. 3 The Pedarayavaram PACS, Rangampeta Mandal, East Godavari district, Rep. by its Chairman/PIC. ....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 issue a writ, order or direction more particularly one in the nature of writ of mandamus declaring the impugned action of the respondents in keeping the petitioner under suspension vide proceedings No. Nill, dated 11.6.2005 on the file of 3rd respondent (without even communication the suspension order on petitioner and continuing him under suspension without paying subsistence allowance and further action of the respondents 1 and 2 in not taking any action against 3rd respondent for suspending the petitioner without jurisdiction is highly illegal, arbitrary and violative of aRt.14 and 21 of the constitution of India and contrary to Section 47 of the A.P. Shops and Establishment Act apart part from contraryto the circular of the Registrar of Cooperative Societies vide Proceedings Rc.No. 3483/85 C2B, dated 12-2-1987, and pass such other order or orders in the interest of justice. Counsel for the Petitioner:MR.EATHAKOTA VENKATA RAO Counsel for the Respondent No.: GP FOR COOPERATION The Court made the following : ORAL ORDER: The very Writ Petition is filed challenging the order of suspension of the petitioner, pending enquiry into certain allegations made against him. While admitting the Writ Petition on 28-4-2005, the respondents were directed to pay subsistence allowance and arrears, if any, to the petitioner. Now, it is brought to the notice of the Court that the enquiry contemplated against the petitioner has been completed and his services were terminated with effect from 30-8-2006. In view of the above, nothing survives for further adjudication in the Writ Petition, as of now. The Writ Petition is, therefore, closed. No costs. 04-4-2008 prk