IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) THURSDAY, THE FIRST DAY OF MAY TWO THOUSAND AND EIGHT PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE L.NARASIMHA REDDY WRIT PETITION NO : 10059 of 2008 Between: P. Hanumanth Reddy S/o. Ram Reddy Central Bank Limited, Vanasthalipuram Branch, Hyderabad. ... PETITIONER AND 1 The Government of Andhra Pradesh, rep. by the Registrar of Co-operative Societies-cum-Commissioner for Cooperation, Nampally, Hyderabad. 2 The Board of Management, The Hyderabad District Cooperative Central Bank Ltd., Nampally, Hyderabad. ...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 action of the second respondent in not disposing of the appeal No. HRD/2005-06/405 filed by the petitioner on 24.09.2004 and completion of hearings on 24.06.2006 and reserving the judgment on the very same day, as being arbitrary, illegal and unreasonable and issue a consequential direction directing the second respondent to forthwith pronounce the judgment in the appeal filed by the petitioner on 24.09.2004. Counsel for the Petitioner : MR.P.LAKSHMA REDDY Counsel for the Respondent No.: GP FOR COOPERATION The Court made the following : O R D E R: The petitioner was appointed as a Staff Assistant, in the Hyderabad District Cooperative Central Bank. Disciplinary proceedings were initiated against him. Through order, dated 11.8.2004, he was dismissed from service. Petitioner filed an appeal before the 2nd respondent on 24.9.2004. He states that though the arguments were heard in the appeal, by the 2nd respondent, on 24.6.2006, no orders have been passed so far, and seeks appropriate direction, in this regard. Heard Sri P.Laxma Reddy, learned counsel for the petitioner, and Sri K. Raghuveer Reddy, learned Standing Counsel for the respondents. The petitioner availed the departmental remedy of appeal, before the 2nd respondent, aggrieved by the order dated 11.8.2004, dismissing him from service. According to the petitioner, the arguments were concluded on 24.6.2006, before the 2nd respondent. Almost two years have elapsed. The pendency of the matter for such a long time, particularly after conclusion of the arguments, cannot be countenanced in law. Such a long gap, between the date of hearing and date of pronouncement of orders, would have its own impact. The matter does not brook any further delay. Hence, the writ petition is disposed of, directing the 2nd respondent to pass orders in the appeal preferred by the petitioner, within a period of six weeks, from the date of receipt of a copy of the order. There shall be no order as to costs. ______________ 1st May 2008 PAN