IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) WEDNESDAY, THE EIGHTEENTH DAY OF FEBRUARY TWO THOUSAND AND NINE PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY WRIT PETITION NO : 4114 of 2002 Between: 1 D.Panduranga Reddy, S/o. D.Ramchandra Reddy, D/No. 67/71, ABCD and 67/72, Old Bus Stand,Kurnool. 2 E.Venkat Reddy, S/o. Late E.V.Krishna Reddy, D/No. 40/826 Club Road, Kurnool, Krunool District. 3 S.Keshava Reddy, S/o. Maddileti Reddy, D.No. 50-764-30, F13, C.Camp Center, Krunool, Kurnool District. ..... PETITIONERS AND The Municipal Corporation, Rep. by its Comissioner, Kurnool. .....RESPONDENT 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 order or direction more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus calling for the records relating to the Notification issued by the Respondent-Corporation vide his Proc.Rc.7378/98/F2, dt. 24-12- 1999 and declare the same as illegal, arbitrary so far as the Item No./9 of Part III (Bar and Restaurants) are concerned so far as applicability of the same of newely opened Bar and Restaurants in pursuance of the G.O.Ms.No.234, Rev.(Excise.II) Department, dt. 30-3-2001 and pass Counsel for the Petitioners: MR.P.RAGHAVENDRA REDDY Counsel for the Respondent: MR.A.SREEDHAR The Court made the following : ORDER: This writ petition is filed for the following substantive relief: “For the reasons stated in the circumstances stated in the affidavit, it is prayed that this Hon’ble Court may be pleased to issue an order or direction more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus calling for the records relating to the Notification issued by the Respondent-Corporation vide his Proc.Rc.7378/98/F2, dt. 24-12-1999 and declare the same as illegal, arbitrary so far as the Item No.9 of Part III (Bar and Restaurants) are concerned so far as applicability of the same of newely opened Bar and Restaurants in pursuance of the G.O.Ms.No.234, Rev. (Excise.II) Department, dt.30-3-2001 and pass such other order or orders as this Hon’ble Court may deem fit and proper in the circumstances of the case.” At the hearing, Sri P. Raghavender Reddy, learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the cause in the writ petition has become infructuous. The writ petition is, therefore, dismissed as such. As a sequel to dismissal of main petition as infructuous, interim order, dated 6.03.2002 is vacated and WPMP No.5116 of 2002 is dismissed. ________________________ (C.V. Nagarjuna Reddy, J.) 18th February, 2009 Js.