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 V.ESWARAIAH and THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE P.SWAROOP REDDY WRIT PETITION NO : 1956 of 2000 Between: 1 Balla Veera Venkata Satyanarayana Murthy son of Veeraiah Nagaram , East Godavari Dist 2 Balla Narasimha Rao son of Veeraiah Nagaram E.G. Dist 3 Junnuri Srinivasa Rao son of Doraiah Naidu Nagavaram, Uppalaguptam Mandal, E.G.Dist 4 Suda Suryanarayana son of Adinarayana Bhattupalam, Uppalaguptam (MO) E.G. Dist 5 Yedida Srimannarayana son of Satyanarayana Medicharlapalem, Malkipuram (Mo) E.G.Dist 6 Vinakoa Radhakrishna son of Adinarayana Mamidivari Street, Kothapeta, Tuni, E.G. Dist 7 Peyyeti Kameswara Rao son of S.V.V. Sarma K.Pedapudi, Ambajipeta (MO) E.G.Dist ..... PETITIONERS AND 1 The District Collector, East Godavari , Kakinada 2 The District Medical & Health Officer , East Godavari Dist Kakinada 3 Secretary, M & H The Govt of AP Secretariat, Hyderabad 4 Registrar, The AP. Administrative Tribunal Purani Haveli , 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 a writ or direction, order or Writ, more particularly one in the nature of Mandamus declaring the action of the Hon'ble AP. Administrative Tribunal, Hyderabad in refusing to grant an interim order in OA.No.428/2000 on 3/02/2000 whereas it has granted interim order in all similar cases as illegal and arbitrary and also shows that the Hon'ble Tribunal had not exercised its Jurisdiction in this Particularly case leading to Judicial Inconsistency. Counsel for the Petitioner: MR.M.PANDURANGA RAO Counsel for the Respondents: GP FOR SERVICES II The Court made the following ORDER: HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE V. ESWARAIAH AND HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE P. SWAROOP REDDY Writ Petition No.1956 of 2000 ORDER: (Per Sri V. Eswaraiah, J) Sri M. Panduranga Rao, learned counsel for the petitioner, submitted that in view of the relief said to have been granted by the Tribunal, no orders are required to be passed in this writ petition. Accordingly, the writ petition is dismissed as not pressed. No costs. _________________ V. ESWARAIAH, J ______________________ P. SWAROOP REDDY, J Dt.25.06.2009 VGB