IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) TUESDAY, THE NINTH DAY OF SEPTEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND EIGHT PRESENT THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE C.V.RAMULU WRIT PETITION NO : 13955 of 2008 Between: Dr.V.Venka Reddy, S/o. V.Kota Reddy, BIRRD(T) Hospital, R/o. 18-1-5a, Ramachandra nagar, K.T.Road, Tirupathi-517501. ..... PETITIONER AND 1 Tirumala Tirupathi Devasthanam, Tirupathi,Chittoor District, Rep by its Executie Officer. 2 BIRRD(T) Balaji Instituti of Research and Rehabilitation- Disabled, Tirupathi, Rep by its Director. 3 Dr. K.V.Subba Rao, Officer on Special Duty, Visakha Institute of Medical Sciences, Visakhapatnam. 4 Government of Andhra Pradesh, Rep by its Prinipal Secretary, Medical Health & Family Welfare Department, Secretariat Buildings, Hyderabad. .....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 a Writ, Order or Direction more particularly one in the nature of WRIT OF MANDAMUS DECLARING the action of the 4th Respondent in issuing G.O.Rt.No.770 Medical Health and Family Welfare Department, dated 26.06.2008 as well as the memo No.TL2/10081/2008 dated 28-06-2008 of the 1st Respondent keeping the 3rd Respondent in full additional charge of the Post of Direction of Birrd(T) hospital, Tirupathi as illegal, arbitrary a nd violative of Article 14 of the Constitution of India and service rules and Regulations of the 2nd Respondent Hospital and consequently set-aside the above Proceedings by directing the 1st Respondent to keep the Petitioner herein as In-charge- Director of the 2nd Respondent hospital whenever the Regular Director is not available. Counsel for the Petitioner:MR.SRINIVAS POLAVARAPU Counsel for the Respondent No.: MR.PHARINATHA GUPTHA(SC FOR TTD) The Court made the following : ORDER Ms.Archana, learned counsel representing Polavarapu Srinivas, learned counsel for the petitioner, submits that the cause in this writ petition does not survive for adjudication and it has become infructuous. Recording the aforesaid submission, the writ petition is dismissed as infructuous. __________ 09-09-2008 rkk