IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) MONDAY, THE EIGHTH DAY OF JUNE TWO THOUSAND AND NINE PRESENT THE HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE and THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE RAMESH RANGANATHAN WRIT PETITION NO : 9178 of 2009 Between: M/s. ITC Limited, 37, J.L. Nehru Road, Kolkatta with its Paperboards and Specialty papers Division Situated at Facilities located at Sarapaka Village, Burgumphad Mandal, Khammam District,A.P. (Scince ITC Bhadrachalam Paper Boards Ltd. Merged with ITC Ltd)Rep. by its V.C.(Finan S/o.P.S. Parasuram, aged 49 yrs, Khammam District. ..... PETITIONER AND 1 The Commissioner of Commercial Taxes, A.P. Commercial Taxes Complex, M.J. Road, Nampally, Hyderabad. 2 The Appellate Deputy Commissioner of Commercial Taxes, A.P. Warangal Division, Warangal, Andhra Pradesh 3 The Assistant Commissioner, (CT) (Int. & LTU), Warangal Division, Warangal Andhra Pradesh 4 The Principal Chief Conservator of Forests, A.P. Hyderabad. 5 The Divisional Forest Officer, Paloncha, Khammam District. 6 The Divisional Forest Officer, Loggilng Division, Bhadrachalam, Khammam 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 issue an appropriate writ order or direction more particularly one in the nature of writ of Mandamus declaring more particularly in the nature of Writ of Mandamus declaring the impugned order issued by the 2nd respondent dated 30-3-2009 rejecting the stay application of the petitioner pending disposal of the appeal without affording an opportunity of being heard as illegal arbitrary, improper, unjust and violative of the Doctrine of audi alterm partem and consequentially quash/set aside the consequential order of the 3rd respondent for recovery of the tax in dispute and such order or orders Counsel for the Petitioner: MR.M.V.J.K.KUMAR Counsel for the Respondents: Sri K. Raji Reddy, Special Standing Counsel for Commercial Tax The Court made the following : ORAL ORDER: (Per Sri Anil R. Dave, CJ) The learned advocate for the petitioner has submitted that during the pendency of this petition, the appeal filed by the petitioner before the Appellate Deputy Commissioner – respondent No. 2 has been disposed of and, therefore, the petition has become infructuous. The petition stands disposed of as infructuous with no order as to costs. As a sequel to the disposal of the writ petition as infructuous, ad interim relief granted earlier stands vacated. ANIL R. DAVE, CJ RAMESH RANGANATHAN, J 8th June, 2009 ks