IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD THURSDAY, THE TENTH DAY OF DECEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND NINE PRESENT HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE SRI ANIL R. DAVE AND HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE C.V. NAGARJUNA REDDY WRIT PETITION No.24788 of 2009 Between: Adivasi (Girijana) Udyogula samkshema and Sanskruthika Sangam, Warangal, Represented by its President. ...Petitioner And The Government of Andhra Pradesh, Represented by its Principal Secretary, Social Welfare (TW.EDN.II) Department, Secretariat, Hyderabad and others. ...Respondents Counsel for the petitioners : Mrs. V. Baby Rani Counsel for respondent Nos.1 to 4: Government Pleader for Social Welfare The Court made the following: ORDER: (per Sri C.V. Nagarjuna Reddy, J.) In this writ petition filed in public interest, the grievance of the petitioner is that respondent No.2 had given clarification dated 6.6.2007 in respect of the definition pertaining to “Local Scheduled Tribe Candidates” mentioned in G.O.Ms.No.3, Social Welfare (TW.EDN.II) Department, dated 10.1.2000. At the hearing, learned Government Pleader for Social Welfare has placed before us the proceedings in Rc.No.1377/2007/TRI/TEEC, dated 4.12.2009 addressed by respondent No.2 to the Collector and District Magistrate, Warangal District, which reads as under: “I invite your attention to the references cited and inform that the Government is examining the matter for issuing appropriate orders in this matter. Therefore, I request you not to implement the earlier orders issued by Commissioner of Tribal Welfare vide letter Rc.No.1377/2007/TRI/TEEC dated 6.6.2007 and follow scrupulously G.O.Ms.No.3, S.W. (TW.Edn.II) Dept., dated 10.1.2000 issued by the State Government for the purpose of issuing community certificates to the Local Scheduled Tribe candidates inhabiting the Scheduled Areas of the District, until further orders.” Inasmuch as respondent No.2 has taken corrective steps by directing the District Collector not to implement the order impugned in this writ petition, the cause in the writ petition does not survive for consideration. The writ petition is accordingly disposed of as infructuous with no order as to costs. ANIL R. DAVE, C.J. 10th December, 2009 C.V. NAGARJUNA REDDY, J. ARS