IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) THURSDAY, THE THIRTIETH DAY OF JULY TWO THOUSAND AND NINE PRESENT THE HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE SRI ANIL R. DAVE AND THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE RAMESH RANGANATHAN WRIT PETITION NO : 7212 of 2009 Between: Sri Leela Pandu Ranga Engineering Co., G.N.T. Road, Eluru, Represented by its Managing Partner Namburi Venkata Rama Kumar, S/o. N.R.K. Mohan Rao. ..... PETITIONER AND 1 Eluru Municipal Corporation, Eluru, West Godavari District, represented by its Commissioner. 2 V. Ravi Kumar, S/o.V.B.G. Tilak presently abroad i.e., USA, represented by its GPA Holder N.Samba Siva Rao S/o.S.Narasaiah, aged about 65 years R/o. Old Income Tax Office Road, Ashok Nagar, Eluru, W.G. District. .....RESPONDENTS 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 in the nature of Writ of Mandamus declaring the action of the 1st respondent in demanding and proceeding against the stock and trade of the petitioner for recovery of property tax including arrears of assessment No. 22358 of property Door No. 22C- 13-17/1, Tilak Hospital Building, Powerpet, Eluru, West Godavari District, is arbitrary, illegal capricious and violative of the provisions of the A.P. Municipalities Act 1965 and consequently direct the 1st respondent not to collect the property tax from the petitioner payable by the 2nd respondent herein. Counsel for the Petitioner: MR. SAI GANGADHAR CHAMARTY Counsel for the Respondent No.1: MR. S. NAGESWARA REDDY Counsel for the Respondent No.2: None appeared The Court made the following : ORDER: (per the Hon’ble the Chief Justice Sri Anil R. Dave) Heard the learned Advocates for the parties. At the time of hearing of this petition, learned Standing Counsel appearing for the respondent Corporation has submitted that the municipal tax in respect of the property in question has already been paid by the landlord during the pendency of this petition. In the circumstances, in our opinion, the cause of action does not survive. The petition therefore stands disposed of as having become infructuous with no order as to costs. ______________ ANIL R. DAVE, CJ _______________________ RAMESH RANGANATHAN, J 30.7.2009 bnr