IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) FRIDAY, THE NINETEENTH DAY OF SEPTEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND EIGHT PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE C.V.RAMULU WRIT PETITION NO : 7230 of 2006 Between: 1 K.Venkata Ramana Chary, s/o Maddaiah Chary, r/o 2/7A, Chandra Palli Village, peapully Mandal, Kurnool District. 2 Mekala Chinna Prakashamaiah, s/o Chinna Ayanna, Voter Identity Card No.AP/261810528214 Alebad Thanda, Peapully Mandal, Kurnool District. ..... PET IT IONER(S) AND 1 Chief Commissioner of Land Administration, Station Road, Nampally, Hyderabad. 2 The District Collector and District Magistrate, Kurnool, Kurnool District. 3 Revenue Divisional Officer, Kurnool, Kurnool District. 4 Smt.B.Uma Maheswari, Mandal Revenue Officer, peapully Mandal, Kurnool District. .....RESPONDENT (S) Petition under Article 226 of the constitution of India praying that in the circumstances stated in the Aﬃdavit ﬁled herein the High Court will be pleased to to issue an order or direction more particularly one in the nature of writ of quo-warranto to restraining the 4th respondent in discharging the duties as dhe is not competent to held the post of Mandal Revenue Officer, Peapully,. Peapully Mandal, Kurnool District by virtue of G.O.Ms.No.116, dt.21-02-1990 apart from orders of 1st and 2nd respondents dt.02-03-2006 and 09-03-2006 respectively and declare the continuation of the 4th respondent in usurpation of an independent public oﬃce by virtue of the illegal orders of the 1st respondent in his proceedings No.VSI(5)/525/2006, dt.02-03-2006 as bad and contrary to all cannons of law apart from G.O.Ms.No.116, dt.21-02-1990 and pass suchother order or orders in the interest of justice and fair play. Counsel for the Petitioner:MS.M.VIDYAVATHI Counsel for the Respondent No.: GP FOR REVENUE The Court made the following : THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE C.V.RAMULU W.P.No.7230 of 2006 ORAL ORDER: The learned counsel for petitioners states that the cause in the writ petition does not survive as of now for further adjudication and it has become infructuous. In view of the same, the writ petition is dismissed as having become infructuous. No order as to costs. _____________ C.V.RAMULU, J Date: 19.9.2008 DA THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE C.V.RAMULU W.P.No.7230 of 2006 19.9.2008