THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY WRIT PETITION NO.17424 OF 2005 Dated 29th December, 2009 Between: Bokka Sri Lakshmi …Petitioner and The District Collector and four others …Respondents Counsel for the petitioner : Sri Kanakamedala Ravindra Kumar Counsel for respondents 1, 3 & 4 : None appeared Counsel for respondent No.2: Sri A.Vishnuvardhan Reddy Counsel for respondent No.5: Sri M.V.Suresh The Court made the following ORDER: In this writ petition, the petitioner sought for a Mandamus to declare the inaction of respondent No.3 in disposing of appeal dated 25.02.2004 filed by respondent No.5 against order dated 23.01.2004 of respondent No.1 as illegal. The petitioner contested as Corporator for 23rd Division of Rajahmundry Municipal Corporation in the elections held on 22.01.2002. The said Division was reserved for persons belonging to B.C community. Respondent No.5 was declared elected in the said election. As the petitioner came to know that respondent No.5 did not belong to B.C community, she filed a petition before respondent No.1 seeking cancellation of the caste certificate issued by the Mandal Revenue Officer, Rajahmundry Urban, East Godavari District in favour of respondent No.5. After a detailed enquiry, respondent No.1 passed order dated 23.01.2004, cancelling the caste certificate of respondent No.5. Against the said order, respondent No.5 filed appeal before respondent No.3. As the application for granting stay was not disposed of by respondent No.3, respondent No.5 filed W.P.No.5204 of 2004. The said writ petition was disposed of by this Court, by order dated 16.09.2004, with the direction to respondent No.3 to dispose of the appeal filed by respondent No.5 within a period of six weeks. The limited grievance of the petitioner in this writ petition is that despite the direction given by this Court, in the above mentioned writ petition, respondent No.3 has not been disposing of the appeal. At the hearing, Sri M.V.Suresh, learned counsel appearing for respondent No.5, on instructions, submitted that the appeal filed by his client was dismissed more than one and half years back. In view of the said fact, the cause in the writ petition does not survive for consideration and the writ petition is, accordingly, disposed of as infructuous. C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY, J Dated 29th December, 2009 vrn