THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY Writ Petition Nos.27683 & 28494 of 2007 Dated 29th June, 2011 Between: Tirumala Srinivas Rao …Petitioner And The Vijayawada Municipal Corporation rep.by its Commissioner, Vijayawada Municipal Corporation, Vijayawada and others …Respondents Counsel for the petitioner: Sri P.V.Rama Sarma For Sri P.A.Seshu Counsel for respondent Nos.1 to 5: Smt.G.Jhansi Counsel for respondent No.6: Sri Srinivas Emani The Court made the following: ORDER: At the interlocutory stage, the writ petitions are taken up for hearing and disposal with the consent of the learned counsel for the parties. These writ petitions concern themselves with the alleged interference of the official respondents with the petitioner’s business of carrying on a meat shop at D.No.30-22-73, Eluru Road, Sitaramapuram, Vijayawada. Pending the first noted writ petition, the petitioner’s licence was cancelled, aggrieved by which, the second noted writ petition has been filed. Sri Srinivas Emani, learned counsel for respondent No.6, who filed vacate stay petition as far back as the year 2008, invited the attention of this Court to order, dated 10.04.2008, in Lok Adalat Case No.383 of 2008, in O.S.No.1962 of 2007, on the file of the learned II Additional Junior Civil Judge, Vijayawada, which was passed in terms of compromise. A perusal of the terms of compromise would disclose that under Clause-1, plaintiff/tenant i.e., the petitioner herein, delivered the vacant possession of the tenancy premises and under Clause-3, he agreed to withdraw these two writ petitions. Smt.G.Jhansi, learned Standing Counsel for respondent Nos.1 to 5, on instructions, stated that the petitioner has evicted the premises obviously in terms of the compromise order referred to above. Sri P.V.Rama Sarma, learned counsel, representing Sri P.A.Seshu, learned counsel for the petitioner, stated that he has no instructions in this regard. However, having regard to the material referred to above, I have no reason to doubt the veracity of the statements of the learned counsel appearing for the respondents and the material filed in support thereof. Inasmuch as the petitioner is no longer continuing in the premises in respect of which these two writ petitions are filed, the lis in the writ petitions need not be adjudicated. The writ petitions are accordingly closed. As sequel to disposal of the writ petitions, the interim order, dated 24.12.2007, shall stand vacated and W.P.M.P.Nos.36202 and 37210 of 2007 and W.V.M.P.No.3363 of 2008 are disposed of as infructuous. C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY, J 29th June, 2011 VGB