IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) WEDNESDAY, THE TWENTY FOURTH DAY OF DECEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND EIGHT PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE L.NARASIMHA REDDY WRIT PETITION NO : 21869 of 2004 Between: 1 Ch. Maheswarachary, S/o. Late Sattaiah Chary, H.No. 12-10-336/17/6/26/3, (TRT No.53) Seethapalmandi, Secunderabad. 2 Smt. Ch. Manjula, W/o. Ch. Maheswarachary, H.No. 12-10-336/17/6/26/3, (TRT No. 53) Seethapalmandi, Secunderabad. ..... PETITIONER(S) AND 1 The Hyderabad Metropolitan Water Supply and S.B, rep. bya its Managing Director, With its Office at Kacheguda, Hyd. 2 The General Manager (ENgg) Single Window Cell, the Hyd M.W.S.and S. B., Khaitabad, Hyd. .....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 or direction one or more in the nature of writ of Mandamus by directing the Respondents to immedicately restore the Water Connection to H.No.12-10-336/17/6/26/3 (TRT No.53) Seethapalmandi, Secunderabad where the petitioners are staying and pass. Counsel for the Petitioner:MR.D.MADHAVA RAO Counsel for the Respondent No.: MR.KALIKI.SUDHAKAR REDDY The Court made the following : THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE L.NARASIMHA REDDY WRIT PETITION NO : 21869 of 2004 ORDER: The petitioners state that their premises bearing H.No.12-10-336/17/6/26/3 (TRT No.53), Seethapalmandi, Secunderabad is provided with water supply connection by the respondents. Their grievance is that the respondents disconnected the supply on 22.11.2004, without any notice and intimation. Several grounds are urged in the writ petition. Ultimately, a direction is sought for restoration of the water supply. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the water supply has since been restored after the writ petition was filed. It is also complained that though the water supply was in existence, for the past several years, it was once again disconnected on 15.12.2008. From the facts mentioned above, it becomes clear that the cause of action in filing this writ petition does not survive, since supply was restored, during the pendency of the writ petition. In case, the supply was disconnected subsequently, the petitioners have to work out their remedies through independent proceedings. Hence, the writ petition is dismissed as infructuous, leaving it open to the petitioners to work out their remedies vis-à-vis the subsequent disconnection of water supply. There shall be no order as to costs. _________ 24.12.2008 Note: Issue C.C. in two days. (B/o) JSU ..... REGISTRAR // TRUE COPY // SECTION OFFICER To 1.2CCs to 2.2CD copies Form-NIC-OGS/WP{JGK} THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE L.NARASIMHA REDDY WRIT PETITION NO : 21869 of 2004 Date: 24.12.2008 JSU