IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) MONDAY, THE SIXTEENTH DAY OF FEBRUARY TWO THOUSAND AND NINE PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY WRIT PETITION No.25414 of 2002 Between: Kothamasu Steel Emporium, Having Shop at D.No.23-1-83, Ground Floor, Flower Market Centre, Guntur, A Proprietory Concern, Rep. by its Proprietor, K.Nageswara Rao, S/o. K.Ramachandra Rao, aged about 43 years, R/o. 21-9-83, Gantalamma Chettu Street, Guntur-3. ..... PETITIONER AND 1 Commissioner, Guntur Municipal Corporation, Guntur. 2 P.V.Surya Brahmam S/o. Mallaiah R/o. D.No.24-9-100, R.Agraharam, Guntur-522 003. 3 P.V.Subramanyam S/o. Veeraiah R/o. D.No.24-9-100, R.Agraharam, Guntur-522 003. 4 Penugonda Syam S/o. Sambasiva Rao R/o. D.No.24-9-100, R.Agraharam, Guntur-522 003. .....RESPONDENTS Counsel for the Petitioner:MR.D.HANUMANTH RAO The Court made the following : ORDER: This writ petition is filed for the following substantive relief: “For the reasons stated in the accompanying affidavit, it is prayed that this Hon’ble Court be pleased to issue any appropriate writ, order or direction, preferably a Writ in the nature of Mandamus declaring the action of the 1st Respondent in demolishing the property bearing No. 23-1-83 situated in the ground floor, near Flower Market Centre, Guntur, bounded by East :Etukuru Road, South : Remaining property of the Respondents 2 to 4 rented out to Kothamasu Prasada Rao, West : Garlapati's property and North: Garlapati's property beyond the required area without notice to the petitioner as being illegal, arbitrary and violative of Articles 14 and 300-A of the Constitution of India and consequently direct the 1st Respondent not to demolish the property bearing No. 23-1-83 situated in the ground floor, near Flower Market Centre, Guntur, bounded by East: Etukuru Prasada Rao, west: Garlapati's property and North : Garlapati's property beyond the require area without notice to the petitioner.” At the hearing, Sri D.Hanumanth Rao, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that cause in the writ petition has become infructuous. The writ petition is, therefore, dismissed as such. As a sequel to dismissal of main petition as infructuous, interim order, dated 26.12.2002 is vacated and WPMP.No.32094 of 2002 is dismissed. C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY, J 16th FEBRUARY, 2009. kvni