IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) TUESDAY, THE FOURTEENTH DAY OF OCTOBER TWO THOUSAND AND EIGHT PRESENT THE HON'BLE SRI ANIL R. DAVE, THE CHIEF JUSTICE and THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE R.SUBHASH REDDY WRIT PETITION NO : 9140 of 2008 Between: Poola Chandra Sekhar, s/o. Pullaiah, Nellore District, R/o. 1/428 M.V. Nagar, Gudur Town, Nellore District. ..... PETITIONER AND 1 The Govt. of Andhra Pradesh Rep by its Principal Secretary, Medical and Health Department, Secretariat Building, Andhra Pradesh, Hyderabad. 2 Andhra Pradesh, Vaidya Vidhana Parishat, Sultan Bazar, Koti, Hyderabad Rep by its Commissioner 3 Andhra Pradesh, Vaidya Vidhana Parishat, Dist. Head - Quaters Hospitas, Nellore, Nellore District. 4 The Dsitrict Collector, Nellore, Nellore District. 5 Andhra Pradesh Vaidya Vidhana Parishat, Gudur, Nellore District, Rep by its Superintendent. 6 Andhra Pradesh Vaidya Vidhana Parishat, Gudur, Nellore District, Rep by its Superintendnet 7 Vakati Ashok Kumar, C.S.S. (Paed), Andhra Pradesh Vaidya Vidhana Parishat, Gudur, Nellore 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 declare inaction on the part of the respondents of Writ of Mandamus declare inaction on the part of the respondents 1 to 3 in taking action against 6th respondents pursuant to enquiry report submitted by the enquiry oﬃcer amounts to erroneous arbitrary and violative of Art. 14,19 and 21 of the constitution of India, and consequently direct the 2nd respondent to take ncessary action against 6th respondent basing on the report sumitted by the enquiry officer and to pass Counsel for the Petitioner:MR.T.C.KRISHNAN Counsel for the Respondent No.: GP FOR MEDICAL HEALTH & FAMI.WELFARE The Court made the following : ORAL ORDER: (Per Sri Anil R. Dave, CJ) In this public interest litigation, the petitioner has made a grievance that no action has been taken against respondent No.6, though an enquiry report has been submitted to the effect that he has committed certain irregularities. In pursuance of the notice issued by this Court, a reply has been filed on behalf of respondents Nos. 1 to 4. Upon hearing the learned Advocates and upon perusal of the reply, we ﬁnd that respondent No.6 has already been charge-sheeted and enquiry proceedings have been initiated. Moreover, it also appears that respondent No. 6 has not been entrusted with any administrative power at this stage. In view of the fact that enquiry proceedings have been initiated, in our opinion, this petition would not survive now. We are sure that the authorities concerned shall take appropriate action to conclude the enquiry at an early date. The petition stands disposed of with no order as to costs. _____________________ ANIL R. DAVE, CJ _________________________ R. SUBHASH REDDY, J 14th October, 2008. GRR