IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) MONDAY, THE TWENTY FIRST DAY OF APRIL TWO THOUSAND AND EIGHT PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE GOPALA KRISHNA TAMADA WRIT PETITION NO : 6980 of 2008 Between: Smt. N. Laxmi W/o. Venkatesham R/o. H.No.8-86, Renjal Village and Mandal, Nizamabad District. ..... PETITIONER AND 1 The District Panchayat Officer, Nizamabad 2 The Divisional Panchayat Officer, Bodhan, Nizamabad District. 3 The Grampanchayat, Renjal Village and Mandal, Nizamabad District, Rep. by its Secretary. 4 R. Jayaram S/o. Shankar Rao R/o. Renjal Village and Mandal, Nizamabad District, .....RESPONDENT(S) 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 any appropriate writ, order or direction more in the nature of writ of Mandamus declaring the action of the 1st Respondent in entertaining the appeal filled by 4th Respondent under Section 128 of A.P. Panchayat Raj Act 1994 and also granting the interim order vide Proceedings No.156/2008-B5(Pts) dated 11.03.2008 prohibiting from making construction of TATA INDICOM TOWER in the land of the petitioner and directing the 3rd Respondent to implement the said order and also directing the 2nd respondent to submit a detailed report within 15 days from the date of the order is nothing but arbitrary, illegal, without jurisdiction and also contrary to the provisions of Section 128 of A.P. Panchayat Raj Act, 1994 and the rules made there under and set aside the same and pass such further or other orders Counsel for the Petitioner: MR.V.RAVI KIRAN RAO Counsel for the Respondents: GP FOR PANCHAYAT RAJ & RURAL DEV. The Court made the following : Form-NIC-OGS/WP{MSN} O R D E R:- Sri V.Ravi Kiran Rao, learned counsel for the petitioner, has submitted that subsequent to the filing of this writ petition, the 1st respondent-District Panchayat Officer, passed an order dated 18.4.2007 in favour of the petitioner, and in the light of the said order, the relief sought for in this writ petition need not be granted, and he may be permitted to withdraw the writ petition. Permission is accorded. Hence, the Writ Petition is dismissed as withdrawn. No costs. ______________ 21.04.2008 bcj