IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) FRIDAY, THE TWENTY FIFTH DAY OF JULY TWO THOUSAND AND EIGHT PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE V.ESWARAIAH WRIT PETITION No: 20278 of 2001 BETWEEN: Neeli Nageswara Rao, S/o Venkaiah, R/o Bapatla Guntur District. ... PETITIONER AND 1 Bapatla Municipality Rep. by its Commissioner, Bapatla, Guntur District. 2 The Commissioner Prohibition & Excise, Andhra Pradesh, Hyderabad. 3 The Assistant Commissioner, Prohibition and Excise, Guntur. 4 The Superintendent, Prohibition and Excise, Guntur. 5 The Inspector, Prohibition and Excise, Bapatla Guntur District. 6 Annam Satish Prabhakar, S/o Subba Rao, Bapatla Municipality Bapatla, Guntur 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 a) declaring the proceedings R.O.C.NO. 1832/01/F1, dated: 21-6-2001 of the Municipal Commissioner, Bapatla as Unjust, arbitrary, illegal void and violate of Articles 19(1) (g) and 21 of the Constitution of India; b) consequently direct the 1st Respondent to act upon its proceedings L.Dis.No. 111/2001-F1 dated: 21-5-2001 and the 2nd, 3rd, 4th and 5th Respondents to consider petitioners application dated: 20-4-2001 for IL.17 licence pending before them and pass such other order or orders as it may deem fit to pass in the facts and circumstances of the case. Counsel for the Petitioner: MR.ABHINAND KUMAR SHAVILI Counsel for the Respondents: GP FOR MUNCIPAL ADMN. & URBAN DEV. MR. M. SHESHATALPA SAI – R6 MR. E. SAMBASIVA PRATAP – R1 The Court made the following: ORDER: The matter relates to the grant of licence for IL-17 licence under the Andhra Pradesh Indian Liquor and Foreign Liquor Rules, 1970. As the said Rules are not in force now and as the manner of granting IL-17 licence is also changed, I am of the opinion that the cause of action does not survive in the writ petition. The writ petition is accordingly dismissed as infructuous. There shall be no order as to costs. ______________ V. ESWARAIAH, J July 25, 2008 DSK