IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) MONDAY, THE FIRST DAY OF JUNE TWO THOUSAND AND NINE PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY WRIT PETITION No.7816 of 2009 Between: N. Ramanaiah Naidu S/o. Venkataiah, R/o. Miahameedapalli of Rajampet Mandal, Kadapa District. License of M/s. Tirumala Wines. ..... PETITIONER AND 1 The Deputy Commissioner, Prohibition & Excise, Rajampeta Division, Kadapa District. 2 The Prohibition & Excise Superintedent, Kadapa District. 3 The Circle Inspector of Police, Rajampeta Urban Police Station, Kadapa District. 4 The Station House Officer, Prohibition & Excise Station, Rajampeta, Kadapa District. .....RESPONDENTS Counsel for the Petitioner:MR.SHAIK MASTAN VALI ORDER: This writ petition is filed for the following substantive relief: “For the reasons stated in the above accompanying affidavit, the petitioner herein prays that this Hon’ble Court may be pleased to issue a writ, order or direction more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus declaring the action of the 3rd respondent in seizing the stock belongs to the petitioner on 05.04.2009 at about 6.45 pm in connection with Crime No.31 of 2009 on the file of PS, Rajampet and subsequent registration of crime in Cr.No.02/2009- 2010 on the file of SHO, Prohibition & Excise, Rajampet dated 6.4.2009 is illegal arbitrary, violative of Article 14, 19 (1)(g) of Constitution of India and contrary to the section 52 of A.P. Excise Act r/w rule 2 of rule under A.P. Excise (Powers and Duties) Rules 1972 and if necessary to quash the Crime No.02/2009-2010 on the file of SHO, Prohibition & Excise, Rajampet and consequently direct the respondents to release the stocks to the petitioners forthwith and may be further direct the respondent forebear from taking action pursuant to the Crime No.02/2009-2010 on the file of SHO, Prohibition & Excise, Rajampet against the petitioner in the interest of justice and equity.” At the hearing, Sri Shaik Mastan Vali, learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that after filing of this writ petition, the seized stock was released and, therefore, the cause in the writ petition does not survive for consideration. In view of this submission of the learned counsel, the writ petition is dismissed as infructuous. As a sequel to dismissal of main petition as infructuous, WPMP.Nos.10235 and 10236 of 2009 filed by the petitioner for interim reliefs are disposed of as infructuous. C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY, J 1st JUNE, 2009. kvni