THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY Writ Petition No.22015 of 2011 Dated 19th September, 2011 Between: Ad Age Outdoor Advertising Private Limited …Petitioner And The Greater Hyderabad Municipal Corporation, rep.by its Commissioner, CC Complex, Tank Bund Road, Hyderabad – 500 063 and others …Respondents Counsel for the petitioner: Smt.Anjana Taggarse Motupalli Counsel for respondent Nos.1 & 2: Dr.Y.Padmavathi Counsel for respondent No.3: AGP for Municipal Administration Counsel for respondent No.4: Sri S.R.Ashok, Senior Counsel For Sri V.V.Anil Kumar The Court made the following: ORDER: At the interlocutory stage, the writ petition is taken up for hearing and disposal with the consent of the learned counsel for the parties. This writ petition is filed for the following substantive relief: “…to grant an order, direction or writ, more so in the nature of writ of mandamus, (i) Declaring the action of respondent Nos.1 and 2 in interfering with the legitimate business and activity of the petitioner in installation of the boards on the unipole at Pr.No.5-2-204 & 209, Sailing Club Annex, Tank Bund, Hyderabad (hereinafter referred to as the “said unipole” for the sake of brevity) vide permission duly accorded by proceeding No.279/AD3/Advt./GHMC/2010, dated 30.12.2010 and duly renewed for the year 2011 to 2012 by proceeding dated 31.03.2011, as being arbitrary, illegal and unconstitutional; (ii) Declaring the action of respondent No.3 in allegedly granting stay of the said permission duly accorded to the petitioner to install the boards on the said unipole, as being arbitrary, illegal and unconstitutional and (iii) Consequently issue directions to forbear respondent Nos.1 to 3 from interfering with the activity of the petitioner to continue with his lawful business of exhibiting boards on unipoles and executing advertisement contracts.” At the hearing, the learned Assistant Government Pleader for Municipal Administration placed before the Court a copy of order, dated 27.08.2011, whereby respondent No.3 has permitted respondent No.4 to withdraw the revision petition filed by it and vacated the interim stay granted by it on 30.12.2010. Smt.Anjana Taggarse Motupalli, learned counsel for the petitioner, submitted that with the passing of the said order by respondent No.3, the grievance with which the present writ petition is filed by the petitioner stands abated. In the light of the above, the writ petition is disposed of as infructuous. As a sequel to disposal of the writ petition, interim order, dated 08.08.2011, shall stand vacated and W.P.M.P.No.26817 of 2011 and W.V.M.P.No.3139 of 2011 are disposed of as infructuous. C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY, J 19th September, 2011 VGB