HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE C.V. NAGARJUNA REDDY W.P.Nos.18566/2010 & 14078/2011 Date: 8-8-2011 W.P.No.18566/2010 Between : G.Deepak Reddy .. Petitioner And The Government of Andhra Pradesh, Represented by its Secretary, Municipal Administration and Urban Development, Hyderabad and two others .. Respondents Counsel for petitioner (in both the Writ Petitions): Sri M.V. Suresh Counsel for respondents in W.P.No.18566/2010: For respondent No.1: A.G.P. for Municipal Administration For respondent No.2 : Dr.Y.Padmavathi, Standing Counsel For respondent No.3 : Ms.V.Uma Devi Counsel for respondents in W.P.No.14078/2011: Counsel for respondent No.1 : Dr.Y.Padmavathi, Standing Counsel Counsel for respondent Nos.2 to 5 : None appeared Counsel for respondent No.6 : Ms.V.Uma Devi The Court made the following: COMMON ORDER: W.P.No.18566/2010 is filed for a mandamus to direct respondent No.2 not to permit respondent No.3 to proceed with construction work vide building permit No.22/61 of 2010 in File No.10/open/8/2010, dated 20-4-2010, till disposal of representation dated 3-6-2010 submitted by the petitioner in terms of order dated 14-7-2010 in W.P.No.16767/2010. W.P.No.14078/2011 is filed for a mandamus to declare the inaction of respondent Nos.1 to 5 in stopping the construction activity by respondent No.6 vide building permit No.22/61 of 2010 in File No.10/open/8/2010, dated 20-4-2010 as illegal and arbitrary. The parties are referred as they are arrayed in W.P.No.18566/2010. At the hearing, it is not disputed by the learned counsel for the parties that the main basis on which these two Writ Petitions are filed is the proceeding of respondent No.2 keeping the building permit granted in favour of respondent No.3 in abeyance. The petitioner also placed reliance on Judgment and decree dated 21-4-2010 in O.S.No.62/2010 on the file of II Additional Chief Judge, City Civil Court, Hyderabad whereby the said suit filed by him for cancellation of the sale deed standing in favour of respondent No.3 with reference to the property in dispute, was decreed exparte. It has come out at the hearing that during the pendency of these two Writ Petitions, respondent No.3 has filed an application for setting aside the said exparte decree and the same is pending. The learned counsel also submitted that in W.P.Nos.20368/2010 and 20494/2010, this court by common order dated 27-8-2010 directed the petitioner and respondent No.3 to approach respondent No.2 for a further consideration of the order keeping the building permission granted in favour of respondent No.3 in abeyance. It is also not disputed that during the pendency of these Writ Petitions, respondent No.3 has almost completed the construction of the building in question. In the light of these admitted facts, the prayer in both these Writ Petitions cannot be granted as construction of the building by respondent No.3 is almost completed and both the parties were already relegated to respondent No.2 for a final decision on the validity or otherwise of the building permit granted in favour of respondent No.3. In this admitted fact- scenario, the cause for adjudication of these Writ Petitions, on merits, does not survive. The petitioner and respondent No.3 are entitled to workout their remedies before respondent No.2 as directed by this court by order dated 27-8-2010 in W.P.No.20368/2010 and 20494/2010. Subject to the above observation, the Writ Petitions are disposed of as infructuous. As a sequel to disposal of the Writ Petitions, interim order dated 1-3-2011 in WPMP No.23495/2010 in W.P.No.18566/2010 and interim order dated 9-6-2011 in WPMP No.l7012/2011 in W.P.No.14078/2011 are vacated and the said applications and WVMP Nos.2347/2011 and 2348/2011, filed in the respective Writ Petitions are disposed of as infructuous. ________________________ Justice C.V. Nagarjuna Reddy Date : 8-8-2011 AM