IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) THURSDAY, THE TWENTY NINTH DAY OF JANUARY TWO THOUSAND AND NINE PRESENT THE HON'BLE MS JUSTICE G.ROHINI WRIT PETITION NO : 27075 of 2005 Between: Sri Natti Kumar, s/o late Natti Venkat Rao, r/o Flat No.36, Madhuranagar Colony, New Buttanguda, Bollaram, R.R.District. ..... PETITIONER AND 1 Government of Andhra Pradesh, through its Secretary, Home (General.A) Department, Secretariat, Hyderabad. 2 Andhra Pradesh Film Chamber of Commerce, represented by its President/Secretary, Film Nagar, Jubilee Hills, Hyderabad. 3 Andhra Pradesh State Film & T.V.Development Corporation Ltd., represented by its Managing Director, A.C.Guards, Hyderabad. 4 Commissioner of Commercial Taxes, Government of Andhra Pradesh, Hyderabad. 5 Mr.C.Ashwanidut, Cine Producer, Vyjayanthi Movies, Road No.17 Prasashan nagar, Jubilee Hills, Behind Jubilee Hills Public School, Hyderabad-.33. .....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 appropriate writ, order or direction more particularly one in the nature of a writ of certiorari calling for records pertaining to G.o.Ms.No.269 Home (General.A) Department dt.16-12- 2005 issued by the Government of Andhra Pradesh and G.O.Ms.No.271 (Amendment) dt.17-12-2005 issued by the same Department and upon perusal of the same be pleased to quash and set aside both the impugned G.Os. as being violative of the petitioner's fundamental rights guaranteed to him under the Constitution of India in the interest of justice andpass such other and further order or orders as this Hon'ble Court deems fit and proper under the circumstances of the case. Counsel for the Petitioner: MR.MILIND G GOKHALE Counsel for the Respondent No.: GP FOR HOME The Court made the following : THE HON'BLE MS JUSTICE G.ROHINI WRIT PETITION NO : 27075 of 2005 O R D E R: The learned counsel for the petitioner represents that in view of the subsequent events, the cause in the writ petition does not survive for adjudication. Accordingly the writ petition is dismissed as infructuous. No costs. ____________ G.ROHINI,J 29th January 2009 kh