IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) THURSDAY, THE NINETEENTH DAY OF JUNE TWO THOUSAND AND EIGHT PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE B.SESHASAYANA REDDY WRIT PETITION NO : 335 of 2008 Between: 1 Ram Kumar Gandhi S/o.late Shri R.M.Gandhi Residing at 4-2-491, Badi Chowdi, sultan Bazar, Hyderabad. 2 Rajesh Gandhi S/o.late Shri R.M.Gandhi Residing at 4-2-491, Badi Chowdi, sultan Bazar, Hyderabad. ..... PETITIONER(S) AND 1 The Commissioner, Greater Hyderabad Municipal Corporation, Tank Bund Road, Hyderabad. 2 The Assistant City Planner, Circle No.6, T.P. Section, Greater Hyderabad Municipal Corporation, Abid Road, Hyderabad. 3 The Assistant City Planner, Central Zone, Circle No.VIII, Greater Hyderabad Municipal Corporation, Abid Road, Hyderabad. .....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 exercise its extra ordinary jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India by issuing writ or certiorari directing the respondents to produce the entire records pertaining to Lr.No.844/5/4/DELP/ACP/C8/GHMC/2007 dated 3.1.2008 and declare the action of the respondents in issuing the impugned notice that the premises No. 4-5-844 (Demised premises) situated at Badi Chowdi Sultan Bazar, Hyderabad is in dangerous and dilapidated condition and to vacate the building immediately and repari/remove the dilapidated structures as arbitrary, illegal, unjust, unfair, unreasonable, malafide, discriminatory, contrary to the ground realities, opposed to the principles of natural justice and violate of article 14 and 21 of the Constitution of India and pass such other order or orders. Counsel for the Petitioner:MR.S.BALCHAND Counsel for the Respondent No.: R.RAMACHANDRA REDDY,SC FOR MCH 1,2,4&6 The Court made the following : Form-NIC-OGS/WP{KURR} HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE B.SESHASAYANA REDDY WRIT PETITION No.335 of 2008 ORDER: This writ petition has been filed assailing the notice dated 03- 01-2008, issued under Section 459 of the Hyderabad Municipal Corporation Act, 1955. 2. The learned standing counsel appearing for the respondent- Municipality submits that the notice challenged in the writ petition has been withdrawn and thereby the prayer sought for in the writ petition has become infructuous. He further submits that the respondent- Municipality issued a fresh notice dated 29-01-2008 and thereupon the petitioner filed a statutory appeal and the same is stated to be pending. 3. In that view of the matter, there is no cause of action survives in the writ petition and accordingly, the writ petition is dismissed as infructuous. No costs. ______________________ June 19, 2008 KVR