IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) WEDNESDAY, THE SIXTEENTH DAY OF JULY TWO THOUSAND AND EIGHT PRESENT THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY WRIT PETITION NO : 16136 of 2005 Between: 1 Potula Janakiramayya S/o.Narayana Swamy, Hindu R/o.Chintanalanka Aniavilli, Mandal, East Godavari District. 2 Potula Satyanarayana S/o.Narayana, Hindu R/o.Chintanalanka Aniavilli, Mandal, East Godavari District. 3 Potula Naga Rao S/o.Seetayya, Hindu R/o.Chintanalanka Aniavilli, Mandal, East Godavari District. 4 Polisetty, Raja Rao S/o.Ayyapa Raju R/o.Chintanalanka Aniavilli, Mandal, East Godavari District. 5 Potula Veera Venkata Satyanarayna S/o.Satyanarayana, Hindu R/o.Chintanalanka Aniavilli, Mandal, East Godavari District. ..... PETITIONERS AND 1 The Assistant Commissioner of Endowments, Endowments Department, Rajahmundry, East Godavri District. 2 Sri Nalam Vari Choultry, Rajahmundry, East Godavari District, rep by its Executive Officer. ....RESPONDENTS Counsel for the Petitioners :MR.V.CH.NAIDU Counsel for respondent No.1: GP FOR ENDOWMENTS Counsel for respondent No.2: None appeared. The Court made the following : O R D E R: This writ petition is filed for the following substantive relief: “This Hon’ble Court may be pleased to pass an order, direction or Writ more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus declaring the action of the respondents in evicting us by conducting open auction on 26-07-2005 to lease out the rights in respect of dry lands in an extent of Ac.24.76 cents in Survey Nos.179, 180, 183/2, 184/2 and 185/1 of 2nd respondent choultry is illegal, bad in law, arbitrary, opposed to principles of natural justice, violative of fundamental rights guaranteed under the Constitution of India, and further contrary to the judgments of this Hon’ble Court in a batch of writ petitions and consequently to set aside the same.” At the hearing, Sri V.Ch.Naidu, learned counsel for the petitioners, submitted that since the proposed auction, which is questioned in this writ petition, was already held and the period for which the auction was held also expired, the cause in the writ petition does not survive for consideration. In view of the same, the writ petition is dismissed as infructuous. C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY, J Dated 16th July, 2008 vrn