IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) THURSDAY, THE TWENTY FIFTH DAY OF JUNE TWO THOUSAND AND NINE PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE GHULAM MOHAMMED and THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE VILAS V. AFZULPURKAR WRIT PETITION NO : 4539 of 2004 Between: 1 Ushodaya Enterprises Limited, Television Division, Ramoji Film City, Hyderabad - 501 512 represented by its Managing Director Ch.Kiron, S/o Sri Ramoji Rao, aged about 40 years. 2 Ch.Kiran, S/o Sri Ramoji Rao, R/o Hyderabad. ..... PETITIONER(S) AND 1 The Election Commission of India, represented by its Secretary, Nirvachan Sadan, Ashok Road, New Delhi. 2 Union of India, represented by its Secretary, Ministry of Information and Broadcasting, Government of India, New Delhi. 3 The Chief Electoral Officer, Andhra Pradesh, Secretariat, Hyderabad. 4 The Joint Chief Electoral Officer, General Administration (Elections) Department, Government of Andhra Pradesh, Hyderabad. 5 The District Election Officer / The Commissioner, Municipal Corporation of Hyderabad, Hyderabad. 6 The State of Andhra Pradesh, represented by its Secretary, Department of Home, Government of Andhra Pradesh, 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 issue a Writ, Order or Direction more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus declaring the Rule 7(3) of the Cable Television Networks declaring the Rule 7(3) of the Cable Television Networks (Regulation) Rules, 1995 and also the directions of the first respondent to implement the same as illegal, unconstitutional and violative of petitioners fundamental rights guaranteed in Articles 14,19 and 25 of the Constitution of India Counsel for the Petitioner:MR.M.V.DURGA PRASAD Counsel for the Respondent No.: MR.C.P.SARATHY The Court made the following : ORAL ORDER: (per THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE GHULAM MOHAMMED) It is represented by the learned counsel for the petitioners that the writ petition has become infructuous. The writ petition is accordingly dismissed as infructuous. No costs. ________________________ GHULAM MOHAMMED,J ____________________________ VILAS V. AFZULPURKAR ,J ASP