IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) MONDAY, THE SIXTEENTH DAY OF JUNE, TWO THOUSAND EIGHT ONLY PRESENT: THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY WRIT PETITION No.8287 of 2005 Between: M/s. Sai Gangothri Purified Drinking Water, Rep. by its Prop. K. Kisthu, S/o. Ramulu, Aged 59 Years, R/o. H.No. 1-4-152, Ramnagar, Adilabad, Adilabad District & others. … Petitioners AND The District Collector, Adilabad District. & another. … Respondents Counsel for the petitioners : Sri S. Surender Reddy This Court made the following: THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY WRIT PETITION No.8287 of 2005 ORDER:- This writ petition is filed for the following substantive relief: “… Hon’ble Court may be pleased to issue a Writ, Order or Direction, more particularly a Writ of Mandamus directing the respondents herein not to take any coercive steps against the petitioner industries pursuant to the impugned proceedings No.2/ADB/D1/2005, No. 1/ADB/D1/2005 and No.3/ADB/D1/2005 dated 15-3-2005 as long as the petitioners do not sell the water in packaged form by duly declaring the proceedings No.O2/ADB/D1/2005, No. 1/ADB/D1/2005 and No.3/ADB/D1/2005 dated 15-3-2005 issued by the 2nd respondent stating that the petitioner industries i.e. water plants were directed to be stop the production alleging that the petitioners are carrying non-BIS certification units of packaged drinking water plants illegally, even though selling of water in loose form in different containers without package does not come under the purview of "Food" as defined under Sec. 2(V) of Food Adulteration Act, 1954 is nothing but arbitrary, illegal, unjustified and is a clear case of abuse of powers vested in respondents without verifying the provisions of Food Adulteration Act and pass such other order or orders”. At the hearing, Sri S. Surender Reddy, learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that after filing of the writ petition, the petitioners applied for and obtained BIS certificate. He therefore submitted that the cause in the writ petition does not survive for consideration. In view of the statement made by the learned counsel, the writ petition is dismissed as infructuous. As a sequel to dismissal of the writ petition as infructuous, WPMP.No.10959 of 2005 and WVMP.No.2930 of 2005 are disposed of as infructuous. ____________________________ C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY, J Date: 16.06.2008 ES