THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE NOUSHAD ALI WRIT PETITION No.8206 of 2006 BETWEEN: Sikkireddy Varalakshmi PETITIONER And 1. The Visakhapatnam Urban Development, rep. by its Vice-Chairman, VUDA, Complex, Siripuram, Visakhapatnam. RESPONDENTS Counsel for the petitioner: Sri O. Manohar Reddy Counsel for the respondents: Mrs. V. Preethi Reddy The Court made the following: ORDER: The petitioner has been granted licence to run a Mini Canteen in Visakhapatnam Urban Development Authority Park Phase-1, Visakhapatnam on a monthly rent of Rs.4050/-. The licence was granted for a period of three years. Contending that as per the Board Resolution No.560, dated 11.07.2000 he was entitled for extension of licence beyond three years period on enhancement of rent, the petitioner has filed this writ petition seeking to declare the action of the respondents in not renewing the licence as per the said Board Resolution. The respondent has filed counter affidavit inter alia contending that the impugned Resolution is no longer in force and the same has been superseded by a fresh Resolution No.71, dated 9.11.2002. By the said resolution it was resolved that henceforth the licence period of stalls, bunks and shops in all parks developed by VUDA is for a period of three years and later it shall be notified for sealed offer-cum-auction. On being confronted with the said resolution, the learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner may be given liberty to challenge Resolution No.71, dated 9.11.2002, and in as much as the petitioner has been running the Canteen, she shall be permitted to continue at least the allotments are made in accordance with the said Resolution. In view of the submission made by the learned counsel for the petitioner, since the impugned Resolution No.560, dated 11.07.2000 has been superseded by later Resolution No.71, dated 9.11.2002 this writ petition has become infructuous. The petitioner is given liberty to challenge the later Resolution in any appropriate proceedings. However, in view of the fact that the petitioner is still running the Canteen and the process of allotment in pursuance of the aforesaid notification takes time, the petitioner shall be permitted to continue to run the Canteen until such allotment is finalized in accordance with the said Resolution. Accordingly, subject to the above observation, the writ petition is dismissed as infructuous. There shall be no order as to costs. ________________ NOUSHAD ALI, J. 25th February, 2011 Js.