IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) THURSDAY, THE SEVENTEENTH DAY OF JANUARY TWO THOUSAND ANDEIGHT. P R E S E N T THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE P.S. NARAYANA * * * WRIT PETITION No. 22945 of 2007 Between: Dubbaka Sridhar Reddy … Petitioner Versus The Manager, Canara Bank, Chityal, Nalgonda district. … Respondent C.C.NO.1283 OF 2007 Between: Dubbaka Sridhar Reddy … Petitioner Versus Sri V.Somayajulyu, the Manager, Canara Bank, Chityal, Nalgonda district. … Respondent Counsel for the Petitioner: SRI E.V. BHAGIRATHA RAO In WP.22945/07 + CC.1283/07 Counsel for the Respondent: SRI DEEPAK BHATTACHARJEE in WP.22945/07 + CC.1283/07 THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE P.S. NARAYANA WRIT PETITION NO. 22945 OF 2007 AND CONTEMPT CASE NO. 1283 OF 2007 COMMON ORDER: This Court ordered notice before admission on 01-11-2007 and also made an order to the effect that in view of the facts and circumstances, the respondent is directed to dispose of the application of the petitioner dated 05-10-2007 within a period of three weeks. 2. The order made on 21-11-2007 is placed before this court. 3. The writ petition is filed for a writ of mandamus, declaring the inaction of the respondent in not granting fresh crop loan of Rs.4.00 lakhs for cultivating high bread cotton crop in Ac:23-00 of land belonging to the petitioner, situated in Nereda village, chityal Mandal, Nalgonda district, on his representations dated 24-1-2007, 22-5- 2007, 13-8-2007, 26-9-2007 and 05-10-2007 as being illegal, unjust, arbitrary and violative of Articles 13 and 21 of the Constitution of India and to pass such other suitable orders, as this Court may deems fit and proper in the circumstances of the case. 4. Several facts had been narrated in the affidavit filed in support of the writ petition. 5. Since it is brought to the notice of this court that the banking-institution had taken some decision by the Proceedings dated 21-11-2007, placed before this Court. 6. This Court is of the considered opinion that no further orders need be passed in this writ petition. The writ petition is accordingly closed. No costs. However, it is made clear that the writ petitioner is at liberty to question the same if the writ petitioner is so advised. 7. It is also brought to the notice of this court that a contempt case, CC.No.1283 of 2007 had been filed. In the light of the proceedings dated 21-11-2007 placed before this Court, this Court is of the considered opinion that no further orders need be passed in CC.No.1283 of 2007. 8. The contempt case is also accordingly closed. No costs. JUSTICE P . S . NARAYANA . 17 /1/2008. IsL