IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) WEDNESDAY, THE TWENTY FOURTH DAY OF JUNE TWO THOUSAND AND NINE PRESENT HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE R.SUBHASH REDDY WRIT PETITION NO : 5521 of 2003 Between : 1 Parvathi Parameswarlu Stone Crushers, Rep. by its A.L.V.Madhava Rao S/o.Narayana Swamy R/o.52-5-1/2, Chikkalavari Street, Kakinada - 2. 2 A.Narayana Murthy, S/o.Narayana Swamy, Parvathi Parameswarlu Stone R/o.52-5-1/2, Chikkalavari Street, Kakinada - 2 ..... PETITIONERS AND 1 A.P.State Financial Corporation, Rep. by its Managing Director, Chiragali Lane, Abids, Hyderabad. 2 M/s. Venkatadri Stone Crushers, Rep. by its Partner, D.Venkata Reddy Yeleswaram Village and Mandal, East Godavari District. .....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 an appropriate writ, order or direction more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus declaring the action of the 1st Respondent in transferring the stone crusher unit of the petitioner along with land, plant and machinery and the fixed deposit receipt to the 2nd respondent as illegal, null, void, without jurisdiction and direct the 1st respondent to hand over the unit to the petitioner forthwith and to pass such other order. Counsel for the Petitioners : MR.M.S.PRASAD Counsel for the Respondents : MR.SREEMANNARAYANA VATTIKUTI The Court made the following : ORDER : In this writ petition, petitioners have questioned transferring of stone-crushing unit set up by them, along with plant and machinery, in favour of the 2nd respondent. 2. When the matter is taken up, it is submitted by learned counsel for petitioners, which is also accepted by the learned counsel for the 1st respondent/Corporation as well as the 2nd respondent that during the pendency of the writ petition, the Unit was re-transferred in favour of petitioners, by respondents 1 and 2. 3. In view of the above development, it is submitted by learned counsel appearing for the parties that no further adjudication is necessary in this writ petition. 4. Recording the statements made by the learned counsel for the parties, as referred above, the writ petition is closed. No order as to costs. _____________________ R.SUBHASH REDDY, J 24th June 2009 N.B: Furnish C.C. in one week. (b/o) ajr