IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) FRIDAY, THE TWENTY SIXTH DAY OF DECEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND EIGHT PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY WRIT PETITION NO : 14878 of 1999 Between: 1 Mudiyala Venkata Chelma Reddy, S/o M.Pedda Venkata Reddy, L.D.C./RC., Electricity Revenue Office, A.P.Transco., Dhone. 2 M.Rama Krishna, S/o M.Sikhamani, L.D.C./RC., Electricity Revenue Office, A.P.Transco., Kurnool. 3 P.Siddeswara, S/o Mallarappa, L.D.C./RC., Divisional Office, The Divisional Electrical Engineer ,A.P.Transco., Adoni. 4 A.C.Lakshmanna, S/o A.Bheemappa, L.D.C./RC., Divisional Office, The Divisional Electrical Engineer ,A.P.Transco., Adoni. 5 K.Hanumesh Rao, S/o K.Vasantha Rao, L.D.C./RC., Divisional Office, The Divisional Electrical Engineer ,A.P.Transco., Adoni. 6 M.Sreenivasa Rao, S/o Late M.Ankalappa, L.D.C./RC., Electricity Revenue Office (Rurals).. A.P.Transco., Kurnool. 7 S.Riajuddin, S/oS.Sirajuddin, L.D.C./RC., Sub Electricity Revenue Office (Rurals).. A.P.Transco., Nandikotkur, Kurnool Dsitrict. 8 R.Jagadeswarappa, S/oLate R.Nagappa, L.D.C./RC., Sub Electricity Revenue Office (Rurals).. A.P.Transco., Nandikotkur, Kurnool Dsitrict. ..... PETITIONERS AND 1 The A.P.,Transmission Corporation (Pervisously part of APESB Rep.by its Director, Vidyut Soudha, Hyderabad. 2 The Supertending Engineer (Operation) Circle, A.P.Transco., Kurnool 3 The Chief Engineer (Electricity) A.P.Transco., Cuddpah Zone, Cuddpah District. .....RESPONDENTS Counsel for the Petitioners: Smt.V.Hima Bindu for MR.P.VEERA REDDY Counsel for the Respondents : P.R.BALARAMI REDDY(SC FOR AP TRANSCO) The Court made the following: ORDER: This Writ Petition is filed for the following substantive relief: “For the reasons stated in the affidavit accompanying, this Hon’ble Court may be pleased to issue an appropriate Writ, order or a direction mostly one which is in the nature of "Writ of Mandamus" declaring the Transco O.O.No.89, dt 3-4-1999 issued by the 1st Respondent as illegal, irregular, arbitrary unjustified, unconstitutional, unsustainable and unreasonable and contrary to the BPMS No.99, dt 29-1-88 and the relevant rules and regulations issued in BPMS No.89, dt 2-2-1970 and set aside the same.” At the hearing, Smt.V.Hima Bindu, learned counsel, representing Sri P.Veera Reddy, learned counsel for the petitioners, submits that subsequent to the filing of this writ petition, the petitioners were given promotions, and hence, the cause in the writ petition does not survive for consideration. The writ petition is, therefore, dismissed as infructuous. As a sequel to dismissal of main petition as infructuous, WPMP.No.18297 of 1999 filed by the petitioners for interim relief is disposed of as infructuous. ________________________ C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY, J Dated:26.12.2008 GJ