THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY WRIT PETITION NO.9313 OF 2007 Dated 16th June, 2010 Between: Laxminivas Agarwal …Petitioner And The Commissioner of Police, Hyderabad City and Six others …Respondents Counsel for the petitioner : None appeared Counsel for respondents 1 to 3: AGP for Home Counsel for respondents 4 to 7: None appeared The Court made the following ORDER: This writ petition is filed for the following substantive relief: “It is therefore prayed that the Hon’ble Court may be pleased to issue an appropriate writ, order or direction more particularly one in the nature of writ of Mandamus to declare the action of respondents 1 to 3 in not investigating into Crime No.248 of 2006 despite registered on 16.11.2006 as illegal, arbitrary, unconstitutional, violative of Article 21 of the Constitution of India, besides violative of principles of natural justice and to consequently entrust Crime No.248 of 2006 to the CBCID or any other investigating agency for expeditious investigation and to grant such other relief or reliefs.” This case came up at interlocutory stage on 14.06.2006. As the party-in-person was not present in the Court, the application along with the writ petition was directed to be posted “for dismissal”. Today, when the case has been called, there is no representation for the petitioner. Therefore, ordinarily, the writ petition would have been liable to be dismissed in default. However, the learned counsel representing the learned Government Pleader for Home submitted that after the filing of this writ petition, charge sheet was filed on 30.05.2007. In view of this development, the cause in the writ petition does not survive for consideration. The writ petition is accordingly dismissed as infructuous. As a sequel to dismissal of main petition as infructuous, WPMP No.11884 of 2007 filed by the petitioner for interim relief is disposed of as infructuous. C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY, J Dated 16th June, 2010 vrn