IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) PRESENT: THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY FRIDAY, THE TENTH DAY OF JULY, TWO THOUSAND NINE ONLY WRIT PETITION No.5882 of 2009 Between: Maturi Narayana Rao … Petitioner And The Govt., of A.P., rep., by its Principal Secretary, Home (Genl.A2) Department, Secretariat buildings, Hyderabad & others. … Respondents Counsel for the petitioner : Sri T. Rajasekhar Rao Counsel for respondents 1-3: AGP for Home Counsel for respondent No.4: Sri O. Manohar Reddy This Court made the following: THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY WRIT PETITION No. 5882 of 2009 ORDER:- In this writ petition, the petitioner questioned G.O.Ms.No.114, dated 20.02.2009 of respondent No.1. Heard Sri T. Raja Sekhar Rao, learned counsel for the petitioner, learned Assistant Government Pleader for Home for respondent Nos.1 to 3 and Sri O. Manohar Reddy for respondent No.4 and perused the record. The dispute pertaining to transfer of B-Form licence in respect of Balaji Theatre, Parvathipuram, is pending between the petitioner and respondent No.4 before respondent No.3. On an earlier occasion, this Court disposed of WP.No.22898 of 2002 by order dated 06.02.2009, wherein while quashing the orders impugned therein, respondent No.2 was directed to consider the matter afresh and pass appropriate order, after giving the petitioner and respondent No.4 an opportunity of hearing on the basis of the material available and without being influenced by any of the observations made in the said order. However, the appeal filed by respondent No.4 before respondent No.1 against order dated 24.10.2005 of the Revenue Divisional Officer, Parvathipuram, renewing the licence in favour of the petitioner came to be disposed of by respondent No.1 on 20.02.2009 i.e., after the disposal of the abovementioned writ petition by this Court. In the said appeal, respondent No.1 directed that renewal of the licence of the Balaji Theatre shall not be made till the disposal of WP.No.22898 of 2002. It is now agreed by both the parties that even before the impugned order in the present case was passed, the said writ petition was disposed of by the aforementioned order of this Court and the entire dispute is now pending before respondent No.3. In view of the same, the impugned order, which is passed on a mistaken premise, ceases to have any force and the same is accordingly declared as unenforceable. The writ petition is accordingly allowed. Respondent No.3 is directed to complete the enquiry and pass an appropriate order as directed by this Court in order dated 06.02.2009 passed in WP.No.22898 of 2002, within a period of two months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. As a sequel to disposal of the writ petition in the manner indicated above, WPMP.No.7673 of 2009 and WVMP.No.1847 of 2009 are disposed of as infructuous. _____________________________ C.V. NAGARJUNA REDDY, J Date: 10.07.2009 ES