The Hon’ble Sri Justice C.V.Nagarjuna Reddy Writ Petition Nos.15384 and 15387 of 2006 Dated 23rd June, 2010 WP.No.15384 of 2006 Between: St.Mary’s P.G.College …Petitioner And The Government of Andhra Pradesh and 3 others. …Respondents Counsel for the petitioner : None appeared Counsel for respondent No.1: AGP for Higher Education Counsel for respondent Nos.2 & 3: Mr.C.Sudesh Anand, SC for APSCHE Counsel for respondent No.4: None appeared WP.No.15387 of 2006 Between: St.Xavier’s P.G.College …Petitioner And The Government of Andhra Pradesh and 3 others. …Respondents Counsel for the petitioner : None appeared Counsel for respondent No.1: AGP for Higher Education Counsel for respondent Nos.2 & 3: Mr.C.Sudesh Anand, SC for APSCHE Counsel for respondent No.4: None appeared The Court made the following: Common Order: At the interlocutory stage, the Writ Petitions are taken up for hearing and disposal having regard to the nature of the cases. These two Writ Petitions have been filed by private colleges conducting MBA and MCA courses questioning fixation of fees for the academic years 2006-07, 2007-08 and 2008-09 by respondent No.3-Committee. Sri A.Sanjeev Kumar, learned Counsel, submitted that Sri S.Sri Ram, who is the Counsel on record, has given up his vakalat. No other Counsel has represented the petitioners. I have heard the learned Assistant Government Pleader for Higher Education representing respondent No.1 and Sri C.Sudesh Anand, learned Standing Counsel for A.P.State Council of Higher Education representing respondent Nos.2 and 3. Sri C.Sudesh Anand, learned Standing Counsel for respondent Nos.2 and 3, submitted that having regard to the fact that the academic years, for which fee was fixed, had expired in the year 2009 itself, the cause in the Writ Petitions does not survive for consideration. On a scrutiny of the material on record, this Court is satisfied that with the expiry of the academic years 2006-07, 2007-08 and 2008-09, the cause on which the Writ Petitions are founded ceased to exist. The learned Standing Counsel further submitted that on the decision of respondent No.3-Committee revising the fees for the subsequent academic years, separate Writ Petitions have been filed and that they are pending. By holding that the dispute raised in these Writ Petitions does not survive for adjudication, the petitioners are given liberty to pursue the Writ Petitions, if any filed by them questioning the revision of fees for the subsequent academic years, and dismissal of these Writ Petition would not affect their interests in this regard. Subject to the above observations, the Writ Petitions are disposed of as infructuous. As a sequel to disposal of the Writ Petitions, WPMP.No.19162 of 2006 in WP.No.15384 of 2006 and WPMP.No.19165 of 2006 in WP.No.15387 of 2006 are disposed of as infructuous. C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY, J Dated 23rd June, 2010 lur