IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) TUESDAY, THE TWENTY SIXTH DAY OF APRIL TWO THOUSAND AND ELEVEN PRESENT THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE SANJAY KUMAR WRIT PETITION No.8731 of 2006 BETWEEN Smt. Kothapalli Prameela Rani. ... PETITIONER AND The Gram Panchayat, Kankipadu, Krishna District and four others. ...RESPONDENTS Counsel for the Petitioner: MR. AMBADIPUDI SATYANARAYANA Counsel for the Respondents: MR. G. ELISHA MR. MEHDI HUSSAIN The Court made the following: ORDER: The grievance of the petitioner was with regard to the inaction on the part of the authorities, respondents 1 to 3, in taking steps against the unauthorized and illegal business activity of respondents 4 and 5 in the premises bearing No.16-119 of Kankipadu village, Krishna District. She sought a consequential direction to the authorities to take necessary suitable steps for preventing such unauthorized and illegal business activity viz. running of a chicken center, poultry business and also a mini Saw Mill. 2. The Panchayat Secretary of Kankipadu gram panchayat filed a counter stating that pursuant to the action taken on the complaint of the petitioner, respondents 4 and 5 removed the saw mill operated in the subject premises. He further stated that as per the permission granted by the gram Panchayat, respondents 4 and 5 are now running a chicken center in the subject premises without causing any inconvenience to the petitioner or to the general public. 3. In her reply to the above counter, the petitioner admitted that respondents 4 and 5 closed down the mini saw mill business and also the poultry farm. She referred to the letter dated 04.03.2011 addressed by respondents 4 and 5 to the Panchayat Secretary of Kankipadu gram Panchayat, wherein they stated that they would operate the chicken center storing not more than twenty five live birds at a time and that they would not conduct any business operations on the property vesting in the gram Panchayat. The petitioner further stated that if respondents 4 and 5 abided by their undertaking as embodied in the above letter, she had no objection to their operating the chicken center in the subject premises. In view of the aforestated developments, as respondents 4 and 5 have committed themselves to follow the course of action set out in their letter dated 04.03.2011 and the petitioner is also agreeable to such business activity by the said respondents, no cause survives for adjudication in this writ petition. The writ petition is accordingly closed. There shall be no order as to costs. ______________ SANJAY KUMAR, J April 26, 2011 DSK