IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) THURSDAY, THE THIRD DAY OF FEBRUARY TWO THOUSAND AND FIVE PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE GODA RAGHURAM WRIT PETITION NO : 15153 of 2004 Between: M/s.Sri Satya Marine Exports, Rest House Road, Bhimavaram, West Godavari District, Andhra Pradesh, PIN-534 201, rep., by its Managing Partner T.Thrinadh Babu, s/o Prakasa Rao, aged about 50 years, r/o Bank Colony, Bhimavaram, West Godavari District. ..... PETITIONER AND 1 The Government of Andhra Pradesh rep., by its Secretary, Agriculture & Co-operation (Marketing II) Department, Secretariat, Hyderabad. 2 The Commissioner and Director of Marketing, Government of Andhra Pradesh, Hyderabad. 3 The Agricultural Market Committee, Akividu, West Godavari District rep., by its Selection Grade Secretary. .....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 or mandamus or any other appropriate writ, order or direction declaring the Circular No.I(2)119/03, dt.28-7-2004 issued by the 2nd respondent directing the 3rd respondent to collect Development cess at the rate of Rs.0.5% on Aqua Products (Praws) meant for export and the consequential Circular R.O.C.No.203/04 dt.9-8-2004 directing the petitioner to pay Development Cess at the rate of Rs.0.5% before exporting the products as illegal, arbitrary, unreasonable, null and void, without jurisdiction and without power or authority of law and ultravires the provisions of the Andhra Pradesh (Agricultural Produce & Livestock) Markets Act, 1966 and violation of Articles 14, 19(1)(g) of the Constitution of India and consequently direct the respondents not to collect the same. Counsel for the Petitioner: MR.A.V.SESHA SAI Counsel for Respondent Nos.1 and 2: GP FOR AGRICULTURE Counsel for Respondent No.3: MR. K.MADHAVA REDDY(STANDING COUNSEL) The Court made the following : ORAL ORDER: It is represented by Sri A.V.Sesha Sai, learned counsel for the petitioner, that the cause in the writ petition does not survive for adjudication. The writ petition is accordingly dismissed as infructuous. No costs. ____________ 03-02-2005 vs To 1 The Secretary,Government of Andhra Pradesh, Agriculture & Co-operation (Marketing II) Department, Secretariat, HYderabad. 2 The Commissioner and Director of Marketing, Government of Andhra Pradesh, Hyderabad. 3 The Selection Grade Secretary, Agricultural Market Committee, Akividu, West Godavari District, 4 Two CCs to the G.P for agriculture, High Court Buildings, Hyderabad(O.U.T). 5 2 CD copies