IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD THURSDAY, THE FOURTH DAY OF JUNE TWO THOUSAND AND NINE PRESENT THE HON'BLE SMT. JUSTICE T.MEENA KUMARI and THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE SANJAY KUMAR WRIT APPEAL NO : 418 of 2002 (Writ Appeal under Clause 15 of the Letters Patent against the Order dated 04-2-2002 in WP NO : 21518 OF 2001 on the file of the High Court.) Between: Sankuru Mark S/o.Gnananandam, Hindu R/o.Pottur Village, Thadepalli Mandal, Guntur District. Licensee of Geetanjali Wines, Mangalagiri, Guntur District. ..... APPELLANT AND 1 A.Ratna Kumari W/o.A.Sarabandhi Raju, Licensee of M/s.Mandakini Wines, Mangalagiri, Guntur District. 2 The Government of A.P. Revenue (Excise-III) Department, Secretariat, Hyderabad, Rep. by its Officer on Special duty. 3 The Commissioner of Prohibition & Excise, Government of Andhra Pradesh, Hyderabad. 4 The Prohibition and Excise Superintendent, Guntur. .....RESPONDENTS Counsel for the Appellant: MR.M.CHANDRASEKHAR REDDY Counsel for the Respondent No.1: MR.M.RAVINDRANATH REDDY Counsel for the Respondent Nos.2 to 4: GP for Prohibition & Excise The Division Bench of this Court made the following : Judgment follows 2nd page THE HON'BLE SMT. JUSTICE T.MEENA KUMARI and THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE SANJAY KUMAR WRIT APPEAL NO : 418 of 2002 J U D G M E N T : (Per the Hon’ble Smt. Justice T. Meena Kumari) The writ appeal is filed against common order dated 04-2-2002 passed in WP.No. 21518 of 2001 by the learned single Judge, whereby the learned single Judge allowed the writ petition and set aside the impugned order. 2. When the matter came up today, the learned counsel Sri M. Ravindranath Reddy submitted that the matter has become infructuous and nothing survives in the writ appeal. 3. Recording the above submission, the writ appeal is dismissed as infructuous. _________________________ JUSTICE T.MEENA KUMARI _____________________ JUSTICE SANJAY KUMAR 04-6-2009 I s L