IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD WEDNESDAY, THE FIFTEENTH DAY OF APRIL TWO THOUSAND AND NINE PRESENT THE HON'BLE MRS JUSTICE T.MEENA KUMARI AND THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE G.BHAVANI PRASAD WRIT APPEAL NO : 448 of 2009 (Writ Appeal under Clause 15 of the Letters Patent against the Order dated 24/03/2009 in WP NO : 6062 OF 2009 on the file of the High Court.) Between: M/s. Devi Engineering & Constructions, A partnership firm rep. by is Managing Partner A. Adinarayana, S/o. Sri Butchaiah at Peda veedhi, Ambajipet, East Godavari District. ..... APPELLANT AND 1 Government of Andhra Pradesh, Rep. by its Secretary, Irrigation & CAD Department, Secretariat, Hyderabad. 2 Engineer-in-Chief, Major Irrigation, Govt. of A.P., Erramanzil, Hyderabad. 3 The Superintendent Engineer, Irrigation Cirlce, Dowlaiswaram, East Godavari District. 4 The Executive Engineer, Godavari Heads Works Division, Dowlaiswaram, East Godavari District. .....RESPONDENTS Counsel for the Appellant:MR.J.PRABHAKAR Counsel for the Respondent No.: GP FOR IRRIGATION & COMM AREA DEV. The Court made the following : JUDGMENT: (Per the Hon’ble Smt. Justice T.Meena Kumari ) Aggrieved by the order dated 24.03.2009 made in W.P. No.6062 of 2009 by a learned Single Judge of this court disposing of the writ petition directing the respondents herein to pass appropriate orders on the representation dated 3.3.2009 submitted by the appellant herein before 3.4.2009 and to communicate the same to the appellant, the writ petitioner preferred this Writ Appeal. The case of the appellant herein is that though the lease to collect toll on Sir Arthur Cotton Barrage at Dowlaiswaram, which was initially granted from 17.6.2006 to 31.3.2008, was extended till 2.4.2009 for the stoppage of regular traffic between 1.8.2007 to 28.7.2008, yet traffic was not full on account of damage to the approach road and, therefore, it submitted a representation dated 3.3.2009 for extension of lease, on which no orders have been passed, is the grievance of the appellant. The learned Single Judge without adverting to merits of the representation submitted by the petitioner, directed the respondents to pass appropriate orders on the representation before 3.4.2009 and communicate the same to the appellant herein. Aggrieved thereby the present writ Appeal is preferred. When the writ Appeal is taken up for admission, the learned Assistant Government Pleader for irrigation has submitted that the representation dated 03.03.2009 submitted by the appellant has been rejected by third respondent by order dated 3.4.2009 vide proceedings No.DB/ATO.4/6834 negativing the request to extend the lease for a further period of six months. In view of the said fact, since no cause of action survives for the appellant, the Writ Appeal is dismissed as infructuous. No order as to costs. However, if the appellant feels aggrieved by the rejection of his representation, liberty is granted to agitate his rights before appropriate forum. _____________________ Justice T. Meena Kumari _____________________ Justice G.Bhavani Prasad April 15, 2009 MAS