Andhra Pradesh High Court
WP/989/2024 of DR. M. SANKARARAO Vs THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH on 19 August 2026
HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3573] THURSDAY, THE 20th DAY OF AUGUST 2026 PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE BALAJI MEDAMALLI WRIT PETITION NO: 989/2024 Between: 1. DR. M. SANKARARAO, .DY. CSRMO GGH, SRIKAKULAM R/0. 5- 160, PLOT NO.162, SUJATHANAGAR,
APHC010655182023
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH
AT AMARAVATI
(Special Original Jurisdiction)
THURSDAY, THE 20th DAY OF AUGUST 2026
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE BALAJI MEDAMALLI
WRIT PETITION NO: 989/2024
Between:
1. DR. M. SANKARARAO, .DY. CSRMO GGH, SRIKAKULAM R/0. 5- 160, PLOT NO.162, SUJATHANAGAR, VISAKHAPATNAM
...PETITIONER
AND
1. THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH, REP. BY THE SPECIAL CHIEF
SECRETARY
AND
PRINCIPAL
SECRETARY,
MUNICIPAL
ADMINISTRATION, SECRETARIAT, VELAGAPUDI, AMARAVATHI, GUNTUR DISTRICT.
2. STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH, REP. BY THE PRINCIPAL
SECRETARY, HEALTH , MEDICAL AND FAMILY WELFARE
VELAGAPUDI, AMARAVATHI, GUNTUR DISTRICT.
3. THE
COMMISSIONER
AND
DIRECTOR
OF
MUNICIPAL
ADMINISTRATION, MANGALAGIRI, GUNTUR DISTRICT.
4. THE DIRECTOR OF PUBLIC HEALTH AND FAMILY WELFARE, GOLLAPUDI,VIJAYAWADA, A.P
5. THE GREAT VISAKHAPATNAM MUNCIPAL CORPORATION, ITS
REP,.BY COMMISSIONER, RAMNAGAR, VISAKHAPANAM, A.P.
6. DR E N V NARESH KUMAR, THE CHIEF MEDICAL HEALTH
OFFICER, PUBLIC HEALTH, GVMC, NEAR RTC COMPLEX
VISAKHAPATNAM
...RESPONDENT(S):
Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed therewith, the High Court may be pleased to issue an order or direction or writ, more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus, declaring the action of the respondents 1 to 5 in posting the respondent 6 as CMHO, GVMC, vide proceedings of respondent 5 vide orders R.C. 13957/2006/C2, Dated 06.06.2023 who is ineligible for the post of CMHO, GVMC, Visakhapatnam, without considering to the seniority and eligibility of the petitioner against his representation dated 23.9.2022, and vide memo no. 1874496/2022-D dated 25.10.2022 of respondent 1 is as highly arbitrary, illegal, null and void and against the principles of natural justice and violation of fundamental rights apart from Art. 300-A of the Constitution of India and to set aside the proceedings of respondent 5 vide R.C. 13957/2006/C2, Dated 06.06.2023 appointing respondent 6 as CMHO, GVMC, Visakhapatnam and consequently to suspend the proceedings of respondent 5 vide R.C. 13957/2006/C2, Dated 06.06.2023, by posting respondent 6 as CMHO, GVMC, Visakhapatnam, pending disposal of writ petition and to pass IA NO: 1 OF 2024
Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased pleased to consequently to suspend the proceedings vide R.C.
13957/2006/C2, Dated 06.06.2023, issued by Respondent 1 pending disposal of the writ petition and to pas IA NO: 1 OF 2026
Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased May be pleased to receive the counter copies on record by allowing the leave petition in the above writ petition and pass Counsel for the Petitioner:
1. K S NAGENDRA VARA PRASAD
Counsel for the Respondent(S):
1. GP FOR SERVICES IV
2. A S C BOSE (SC FOR MUNICIPAL CORPORATIONS AP)
The Court made the following:
Citations and Judicial Treatment
Cited by
0
Decisions in the index citing it
Cites
0
Decisions referred to
In this index
0
Of the decisions it cites
Overruled / Questioned
0
No negative treatment found
Loading the citing and cited decisions…
This judgment in the centre: on the left the decisions it cites, on the right the decisions citing it. Colour is the treatment; choose a decision to open it.
ORDER:
On 18.06.2026, there was no representation for the petitioner. Again, on 02.07.2026 and 23.07.2026, there was no representation for the petitioner.
2. Learned counsel for the respondents submitted that the petitioner has since retired from service on attaining the age of superannuation and, as such, the matter has become infructuous.
3. As there has been no representation on behalf of the petitioner on the last three occasions, it can be said that the petitioner lost interest to prosecute the matter. Hence, the Writ Petition is dismissed for want of prosecution. No costs.
As a sequel, Interlocutory Applications pending, if any, shall stand closed.
______________________________ JUSTICE BALAJI MEDAMALLI Date : 20-08-2026 BMS