IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) WEDNESDAY, THE SIXTEENTH DAY OF JULY TWO THOUSAND AND EIGHT PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE B.SESHASAYANA REDDY WRIT PETITION NO : 2821 of 2006 Between: 1 Shafi Chicken Center, Rep. by its Proprietor, Mohd. Ansari S/o. Ibrahim, Ponnuru 2 Akbal Chicken Stall, Rep. by its Proprietor, Mohd. Basha S/o. Allabakshi Ponnuru 3 Lateef Chicket Stall, Rep. by its Proprietor, Shaik Mohd.S/o. Abdul Lateef Ponnuru 4 Bismillah Chicken Stall, Rep. by its Proprietor, Pathan Basha S/o. Mastan Ponnuru 5 Naresh Chicken Center, Rep. by its Proprietor, Menuga Subba Rao S/o. Raghavaiah, Nidubrolu 6 S.N. Chicken Stall, Rep. by its Proprietor, Shaik Baba Vali S/o. Modar Saheb, Ponnuru ..... PETITIONERS AND Ponnuru Municipality, Rep. by its Commissioner, Ponnuru, Guntur District. .....RESPONDENT 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 writ order or direction more particularly one in the nature of writ of Mandamus declaring the C.R. No. 315 dt. 7-2-2006 and the consequential final notice in R.C. No. 1936/05/F dt. 8-2-2006 as illegal, arbitrary void, ultravires to the provisions of A.P. Municipalities Act 1965, Violative of principles of natural justice and violative of Article 14, 19(1)(g) and 21 of the Constitution and consequently direct the respondent to grant licences to the petitioners to run the Chicken Stalls in the private Shops and pass such other order or further orders as may be deemed fit and proper in the interest of justice. Counsel for the Petitioner:MR.T.S.VENKATARAMANA Counsel for the Respondent No.: MR.S.NAGESWARA REDDY The Court made the following : ORDER This writ petition has been filed by the petitioners with a prayer to issue writ, Order or direction more particularly one in the nature of Writ of mandamus declaring the C.R.No.315 dated 7.2.2006 and the consequential final notice in R.C.No.1936/05/F, dated 8.2.2006 as arbitrary and illegal. The writ petition came to be admitted on 16.2.2006 and an interim order came to be passed in WPMP Nos.3470 and 3471 of 2006, which reads as under: “It is stated that the petitioners are carrying on chicken business by paying licence fee and for grant of licence for the year 2004-2005, they have made applications on 26.2.2004, but no licences have been granted. In the mean while, the respondent has passed resolution regulating the sale of meat and chicken in the private markets, resolving to sell them in the notified markets alone. Having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case, the petitioners are permitted to make fresh applications for grant of licences if they are entitled. If the said applications are filed, the respondent is directed to consider and dispose of the same in accordance with law. It is also directed that the live chicken birds which have been seized by the respondent may be released in favour of the petitioners, without permitting them to cut and sell them if the private market unless they obtain the licence.” Since the petitioners are permitted to make fresh applications, the cause in the writ petition does not survives for adjudication. Accordingly, the writ petition is dismissed as infructuous. No costs. __________ 16-07-2008 rkk