THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY Writ Petition No.18670 of 2011 Dated 19th August, 2011 Between: M/s.Maheshwari Megaventures Ltd., …Petitioner And Greater Hyderabad Municipal Corporation, rep.by its Commissioner, Tank Bund Road, Hyderabad and others …Respondents Counsel for the petitioner: Sri Mahmood Ali Counsel for respondent Nos.1 to 3: Sri C.Damodar Reddy Counsel for respondent Nos.4 & 5: Sri P.Shiv Kumar Counsel for respondent No.6: Sri M.R.Chakravarthy For Sri M.V.Durga Prasad The Court made the following: ORDER: This writ petition is filed for the following substantive relief: “…to issue an order, direction or a writ more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus declaring the action of the Respondent in issuing the impugned proceedings bearing Lr.No.522/CCP/TPS/HO/GHMC/2011, dated 02.07.2011 and 30.06.2011, as illegal, arbitrary, unconstitutional and against the principles of natural justice and consequently direct the respondent Corporation to remove the seal of premises No.3-6-552 to 558 and 558/1, Himayathnagar, Hyderabad.” At the hearing, Sri Mahmood Ali, learned counsel for the petitioner, seeks withdrawal of the writ petition by stating that the writ petition is filed questioning the proceedings of the Greater Hyderabad Municipal Corporation (for short ‘the Corporation’) in sealing the petitioner’s premises on the ground of non-obtaining of Occupancy Certificate (OC) and that during the pendency of the writ petition, the Corporation has granted OC, as a result of which, the cause in the writ petition does not survive for adjudication and to that effect, he filed letter, dated 11.08.2011, into the Registry. Sri M.R.Chakravarthy, learned counsel, representing Sri M.V.Durga Prasad, learned counsel for respondent No.6, opposed the request by stating that the petitioner derived benefit from the interim order granted by this Court and granting permission to him to withdraw the writ petition constitutes abuse of process of Court. I have carefully considered this submission of the learned counsel and I do not find any merit therein. The writ petition is filed against the action of the Corporation in sealing the petitioner’s premises on the ground that it has failed to obtain OC. This Court by a detailed order passed on 08.07.2011 in W.P.M.P.Nos.22539 and 22540 of 2011 has taken a prima facie view that the Corporation is not empowered under Sections 461 and 461-A of the Greater Hyderabad Municipal Corporation Act, 1955 to seal the premises after its completion and that it can only prevent the persons from occupying the building in respect of which OC is not issued. No observations or findings touching the issue of OC were made by this Court in the said order. Therefore, the interim order of this Court did not in any manner help the petitioner to obtain OC. Inasmuch as the petitioner is stated to have obtained the OC, the cause on which the writ petition is filed does not appear to exist on account of this subsequent development. Accordingly, I do not find any merit in the objection raised by the learned counsel for respondent No.6 for withdrawal of the writ petition. For the above-mentioned reasons, the writ petition is dismissed as withdrawn, however, with liberty to respondent Nos.4 to 6 to avail appropriate remedy, if they feel aggrieved by the issuance of OC in favour of the petitioner. As a sequel to dismissal of the writ petition, W.P.M.P.No.22776 of 2011 is disposed of as infructuous. C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY, J 19th August, 2011 VGB