IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) THURSDAY, THE SEVENTEENTH DAY OF JULY TWO THOUSAND AND EIGHT PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE B.SESHASAYANA REDDY WRIT PETITION NO : 4650 of 2008 Between: Palla Hari Babu S/o.Narasaiah R/o.Jawaharnagar, Chirala Town Prakasam District ..... PETITIONER AND 1 State of Andhra pradesh, rep.by its Principal Secretary to the Municipal Administration Department, Secretariat Hyderabad 2 Chirala Municipality, rep.by its Commissioner Chirala, Prakasam District 3 The Tahsildar, Chirala, Prakasam District .....RESPONDENTS Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying that in the circumstances stated in the Affidavit filed herein the High Court may be pleased to issue a writ order or direction more particularly one in the nature of writ of mandamus declaring the action of the respondents innot preventing and removing the encroachment on the connecting site of two roads in town Survey numbers 8/3 and 9/2A in Jawaharnagar of Chirala Municipal Limits in spite of the petitioner representation dated 15.11.2007 as illegal, irregular arbitrary, and violative of provisions of Andhra Pradesh Municipalities Act the rules framed there under and offends articles, 14,19,AND 21 of the Constitution of India and consequently direct the respondents to remove and prevent the said encroachments and restore the same for public use. Counsel for the Petitioner: MR.NIMMAGADDA SATYANARAYANA Counsel for the Respondent No.1: GP FOR MUNCIPAL ADMN. & URBAN DEV. Counsel for the Respondent No.2: MR. S.NAGESWARA REDDY, STANDING COUNSEL. Counsel for the Respondent No.3: G.P. FOR REVENUE The Court made the following : O R D E R: This writ petition has been filed by Palla Hari Babu complaining inaction of the respondents on the complaint made by him with regard to the encroachment of the site earmarked for road by U.Sambaiah. 2. When this writ petition came for admission, the Learned Standing Counsel appearing for the 2nd respondent-Municipality, on instructions, reports that encroachments made by said U.Sambaiah have been removed in pursuance of the resolution passed by the municipal council. 3. Such is the representation of the Standing Counsel appearing for the 2nd respondent-Municipality, the cause in this writ petition does not survive. 4. Accordingly, the writ petition is dismissed as infructuous at the admission stage. No costs. ______________________ B.SESHASAYANA REDDY, J. Date:17th June, 2008. cs .....ASSISTANT REGISTRAR // TRUE COPY // SECTION OFFICER To 1. 2 CCs 2.2CD copies Form-NIC-OGS/WP{LS}