IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) THURSDAY, THE FOURTH DAY OF SEPTEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND EIGHT PRESENT THE HON'BLE MRS JUSTICE T.MEENA KUMARI AND THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE RAMESH RANGANATHAN WRIT PETITION NO : 25074 of 1998 Between: 1 Golla Devaiah, S/o Veeraiah, R/o 3-51, Pathancheru,, Medak District. 2 Thyarla Sravan Kumar, S/o Viswanadham, R/o 2-173, Pathancheru, Medak District. 3 B. Jangaiah Goud, S/o Mallaiah, R/o 2-224, Pathancheru, Medak Dist. ..... PETITIONERS AND 1 Government of A.P., Rep. by Secretary , Panchayat Raj & Rural Development (Panchayats-IV) Dept., Secretariat, Hyderabad. 2 Government of A.P., Rep. by Secretary Law and Legislative Affairs, Secretariat, Hyderabad. 3 A.P. Industrial Infra Structure Corporation Ltd., Rep. by Chairman & Managing Director, Hyderabad. 4 Pathancheru Gram Panchayat Rep. by Executive Officer, Pathancheru , Medak Dist. .....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 a writ of mandamus or any other appropriate Writ declaring that G.O.Ms.No.109 dt:9.3.98 issued by the 1st respondent purporting to transfer the power and function of gram panchayats in Medak District to the 3rd respondent apportioning the revenue in the ratio of 35:65, is arbitrary, illegal abd unconstitutional if necessary by declaring that the explanation to section 147 of the A.P. Panchayat Raj Act which enables the 3rd respondent to be reckoned as local authority as unconstitutional and ultra vires the power if the State Legislature and consequently direct the respondents to allow the Gram Panchayata in Medak Dist to discharge their functions to the exclusion of the 3rd respondent A.P. Industrial Infra Structure Corporation Ltd and grant such other relief as it deems ﬁt in the circumstances of the case Counsel for the Petitioner: MR.V.VENKATARAMANA Counsel for the Respondent No.: MR.P.RAGHAVENDRA REDDY The Court made the following : ORAL ORDER: (per THE HON’BLE MRS. JUSTICE T.MEENA KUMARI) When this Writ Petition is taken up for hearing, learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the cause in the Writ Petition does not survive and the Writ Petition has become infructuous. Recording the same, the Writ Petition is dismissed having become infructuous. No order as to costs. ____________________ Justice T.Meena Kumari _______________________ Justice Ramesh Ranganathan September 4, 2008 MAS. ..... REGISTRAR // TRUE COPY // SECTION OFFICER To 1.2CCs to 2.2CD copies Form-NIC-OGS/WP{SAM}