IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) TUESDAY, THE FIFTH DAY OF FEBRUARY TWO THOUSAND AND EIGHT PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE V.ESWARAIAH WRIT PETITION No.8683 of 2001 Between: Abdul Sattar S/o.Abdul Hameed R/o.Old Bus Stand Road, Kamareddy, Nizamabad District. ..... PETITIONER AND 1 The Municipal Council, Rep. by its Commissioner, Kamareddy Municipality, Nizamabad District. 2 Sri Ch.Balaraj Godavarikhani Depot, Karimnagar District. .....RESPONDENT(S) 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 to issue a writ, order a direction more particularly one in the nature of Mandamus, declaring the action of the respondent in alloting shop No.1 of B-block Daily Vegetable Market, Kamareddy, to the 2nd respondent who is a full time employee (Conductor) with satff No.319269 of APSRTC, Godavarikhanai Depot, as illegal arbitrary and Unconstitutional and consequently direct the 1st respondent to cancel the said allotment and pass Counsel for the Petitioner:MR.SRINIVASA RAO BODDULURI Counsel for the Respondent No.: MR.V.VISWANATHAM The Court made the following : THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE V.ESWARAIAH WRIT PETITION No.8683 of 2001 ORDER: It is the case of the petitioner that he made a representation before the Commissioner, Kamareddy Municipality, Nizamabad District, on 20-02-2001 to cancel the allotment made in favour of the 2nd respondent in respect of shop No.1, B-Block, Daily Vegetable Shop, Kamareddy, and to allot the same in his favour. This court while admitting the writ petition on 27-04-2001, directed the Commissioner, Kamareddy Municipality, Nizamabad District, to take appropriate action on the representation of the petitioner, dated 20-02-2001 and the very allotment made in favour of the 2nd respondent shall be subject to further orders to be passed in the writ petition. I am of the opinion that if the representation has been considered in favour of the petitioner, it is for the aggrieved party to question the said action. If the representation is considered and rejected, it is for the petitioner to question the rejection order. In view of the aforesaid facts and circumstances of the case, I am of the opinion that nothing survives in the writ petition. Accordingly, the writ petition is closed. There shall be no order as to costs. ___________ 02-05-2008 Prv ..... REGISTRAR // TRUE COPY // SECTION OFFICER To 1.2CCs to 2.2CD copies Form-NIC-OGS/WP{MADHURI}