IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) THURSDAY, THE SIXTEENTH DAY OF JUNE TWO THOUSAND AND ELEVEN PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY WRIT PETITION No.16453 of 2007 Between: M/s. Deepika Constructions, Hyderabad. ..... Petitioner AND The Superintending Engineer I & CAD, Irrigation Circle, Nirmal, Adilabad District & another. .....Respondents Counsel for the petitioner: Sri P. Vinayakaswamy The Court made the following: THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY WRIT PETITION No.16453 of 2007 ORDER: This Writ Petition is filed for the following substantive relief: “… Hon’ble court may be pleased to issue writ or order or direction more particularly one in the nature of writ of Mandamus declaring the action of the respondents by giving the prospective effect of G.O.Ms.No.77, I&CAD (PW, Reforms) dated 15.04.2006 relating to the work “NABARD-RIDF-VI-EARTH” work excavation and forming canal banks including CD&CM works from Km.29.10 to Km.42.20 of Suddavagu Project, Bhainsa (V&M), Adilabad District under L.S. Agreement No.D1/43/2003-2004, dated 31.03.2004 and contemplating recovery of the seigniorage charges at the enhanced rates, as illegal, arbitrary, unreasonable and discriminative and declare that the petitioner is entitled for difference seigniorage charges in terms of minutes of board meeting dated 21.01.2004 and in the spirit of G.O.Ms.No.77, I&CAD (PW Reforms) Department, dated 15.04.2006 and further directing the respondents to give retrospective effect G.O.Ms.No.77 dated 15.04.2006 with effect from 01.07.2003 as per G.O.Ms.No.94 and not to recover the seigniorage charges at the enhanced rates.” At the hearing, Sri P. Vinayakaswamy, learned counsel for the petitioner, submitted that subsequent to the filing of this Writ Petition, the State Government has given the benefit pertaining to payment of seigniorage charges and that therefore the cause in the Writ Petition does not survive for adjudication. In view of the above, the Writ Petition is dismissed as infructuous. As a sequel to dismissal of the Writ Petition, WPMP.No.20918 of 2007 filed by the petitioner for interim relief is also dismissed. ____________________________ C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY, J Date: 16.06.2011 ES