IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) MONDAY, THE TWENTY EIGHTH DAY OF APRIL TWO THOUSAND AND EIGHT PRESENT THE HON'BLE MRS JUSTICE T.MEENA KUMARI AND THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE S. ASHOK KUMAR WPMP No. 9339 OF 2008 AND WRIT PETITION NO : 16172 of 2005 AND C.C. NO. 673 OF 2006 Between: 1 B.Madhava Rao, S/o.B.Tirumala Rao, O/o. Executive Engineer, R&B Division, Mancherila, Adilabad District. 2 A.Krishna Murthy, S/o.A.Ramchander, O/o. Superintendent Engineer, R&B N.H. Circle Hyderabad. ..... PETITIONERS AND 1 The Government of Andhra Pradesh, Rep by its Special Chief Secretary, T.R&B Department, Secretariat, Hyderabad. 2 The Government of Andhra Pradesh Rep by its Secretary, T. R&B Department, Secretariat, Hyderabad. 3 The Engineer-in-Chief R&B (Admn.) Errammanzil, Hyderabad. 4 Sri P.V.Sharma s/o.Late P.V.Somayajulu PMS Division, Hyderabad. .....RESPONDENTS 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 issue writ order or direction more particularly one in the nature of writ of Certiorari " calling for the records relating to the order dt.7.7.2005 passed in O.A.No.1806 /2005 by the Hon'ble AP administrative Tribunal, Hyderabad and quash the same in so far as it relates to the direction to the official respondents to implement the order in O.A.No.6409/1999 in respect of the 4th respondent as unjust and with out any basis and consequently direct the respondents to consider the cases of the petitioners for promotion as Superintending Engineers basing on the existing Final Seniority list in the Department and pass. Counsel for the Petitioner:MR.M.RATNA REDDY Counsel for Respondent No.: GP FOR ROADS & BUILDINGS The Court made the following : COMMON ORAL ORDER: (per THE HON’BLE MRS. JUSTICE T.MEENA KUMARI) Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the cause in this Writ Petition does not survive and the Writ Petition has become infructuous and also filed WP MP No. 9339 of 2008 to that effect. Recording the same, the Writ Petition is dismissed having become infructuous and the Miscellaneous Petition is ordered. No order as to costs. Consequent upon the dismissal of the Writ Petition itself, the Contempt Case is also accordingly closed. ____________________ T.MEENA KUMARI, J. __________________ S.ASHOK KUMAR, J. April 28, 2008 MAS.