IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) TUESDAY, THE THIRTIETH DAY OF JUNE TWO THOUSAND AND NINE PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE C.V.RAMULU WRIT PETITION NO : 17359 of 2002 Between: M. Pratap Reddy S/o Bhaskara Reddy Ganapathi granites, Thana, Ellamrajupalle Post, G.D. Nellore Mandal, Chittoor district. ..... PETITIONER AND 1 The District of Mines & Geology Andhra Pradesh, Hyderabad. 2 The Deputy Director of Mines & Geology, and Geology Cuddapah, Cuddapah District. 3 The Assistant Director of Mines & Geology Chittoor, Chittoor District. 4 The Proprietor R. Babu M/s. Siv Shirdi Trading Unit, Gudipala Village and Post, Gudipala Mandal, Chittoor District. .....RESPONDENT(S) 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 to issue a writ of Mandamus or any other appropriate writ, order or direction declaring the proceedings No. 3879/K2/95 dt.11-10- 1995 issued by the 1st respondnet granting quarry lease for black granite in S.No. 56 of Eguvakanthala Cheruvu village, Bangarupalem Mandal, Chittoor district in favour of 4th respondent without even rectifying the discrepancy crept in the sketch appended to the renewal quarry lease executed by the petitioner's transferor on 10-12-1993 for an extent of 5 hectares in the above said survey number as illegal, malafide and arbitrary and violative of Articles 14 & 19(1)(g) of the Constitution of India and consequentially direct the respondents herein to include 0.600 hectares in the sketch apended to the original lease deed executed by the petitioner's transferror in respect of the quarry lease granted over an extent of 5.000 hectares in S. No,. 56 of Eguvakanthala Cheruvu village of Bangarupalem Mandal, Chittoor district in the light of the Surveyoor's report and pass Counsel for the Petitioner :MR.A.V.SESHA SAI Counsel for the Respondent No.: GP FOR MINES AND GEOLOGY The Court made the following : ORDER : Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner represents that the cause of action does not survive for further adjudication and this petition has become infructuous. Therefore, this petition is liable to be dismissed as infructuous. Accordingly, the Writ Petition is dismissed as infructuous. _____________ C.V.RAMULU, J Dated June 30, 2009 KSH