IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) TUESDAY, THE TWENTY FIFTH DAY OF JUNE TWO THOUSAND AND NINE PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY WRIT PETITION NO : 4876 of 2007 Between: ING Vysya Bank Ltd, Siddipet Branch, D.No.11-1-15 & 16, Medak Road, Siddipet Town, Medak District, rep. by its Branch Manager. ..... PETITIONER AND 1 Government of Andhra Pradesh, Civil Supplies Department, Represented by its secretary to the Government, Secretariat Buildings, Saifabad, Hyderabad. 2 The Joint Colector, Sanga Reddy, Medak District. 3 Mandal revenue Officer, Siddipet Mandal, Siddipet, Medak District. 4 Central Ware Housing Corporation, Siddipet, Medak District. 5 M/s.Venkateswara Enterprises rep. by its Proprietor G.Venkatesam S/o. Rangaiah R/o.New Market Yard Siddipet, Siddipet, Medak District. 6 M/s.Vijaya Enterprises rep. by its Proprietor Sri. Y.Ramanadhan S/o.Nasrasaiah R/o.1-25, Shutter No.1, Narsapur Road, Siddipet Town, Medak District. .....RESPONDENTS Counsel for the Petitioner: SMT.V.DYUMANI Counsel for Respondent Nos.1 to 3: GP FOR CIVIL SUPPLIES Counsel for Respondent No.4: SRI G.RAMACHANDRA RAO, SC FOR CENTRAL WAREHOUSING CORPORATION Counsel for Respondent Nos.5 and 6: ----- The Court made the following: ORDER: This Writ Petition is filed for the following substantive relief: “to issue a writ, order or direction, more particularly, in the nature of Writ of Mandamus declaring Orders passed by Respondent No.2 vide proceedings No. CSA/17/2007 dated 28-2-2007 and CSA/31/2007 dated 28-2-2007 to seize, sell and remit the sale proceeds into A.P. State Government Revenue Account in respect of the Red Gram belonging to Respondent Nos.5 & 6, which are kept with Respondent No.4 and pledged to the Petitioner, as arbitrary, illegal, capricious and violative of principles of natural justice and consequently, suspend the operation of the said order and prohibit Respondent No.3 from seizing, selling and remitting the sale proceeds in A.P. State Government Revenue Account pending disposal of the above Writ Petition and pass such other order or orders as this Hon'ble Court may deem fit in the circumstances of the case.” Smt.V.Dyumani, learned Counsel for the petitioner, stated that the cause in the Writ Petition does not survive for consideration, and therefore, the Writ Petition has become infructuous. In view of the same, the Writ Petition is dismissed as infructuous. As a sequel to dismissal of the Writ Petition, W.P.M.P.No.6237 of 2007 filed by the petitioner for interim relief is disposed of as infructuous. ___________________________ (C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY, J) 25th June, 2009 LUR