IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) WEDNESDAY, THE THIRTY FIRST DAY OF DECEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND EIGHT PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE L.NARASIMHA REDDY WRIT PETITION NO : 10530 of 2001 Between: Gundrampalli Yadaiah Alias Sherva Yadaiah S/o. Late Jangaiah H.No.18/3/586, Omnagar, Laldarwaza, Hyderabad. ..... PETITIONER AND 1 The Principal Secretary to Government Home Department, Government of A.P., Secretariat, Hyderabad. 2 The Commissioner of Police, Hyderabad. .....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 to issue a Writ of Certiorari, order or direction to the respondents and to quash the externment orders passed in Memo.No.14355/Pol.H/S-1/2001-4 dt:18-5-2001 passed by the last 1st respondent on the basis of orders passed by the 2nd respondent in SB(1)No.11/Ext.1/S-1/2001 dt:7-4-2001 and pass Counsel for the Petitioner:MR.SHIVA SHANKER CHOWDARY Counsel for the Respondent No.: GP FOR HOME The Court made the following : THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE L. NARASIMHA REDDY W.P.No.10530 of 2001 ORDER: The Commissioner of Police, Hyderabad-second respondent passed an order dated 7.4.2001 directing externment of the petitioner from the limits of Hyderabad city for a period of six months from the date of that order. It was passed in exercise of power under Section 26 (7) of the Hyderabad City Police Act. The second respondent alleged that the petitioner was involved in number of cases and his presence in the city is prejudicial to the public order. Allegations were also made to the effect that the petitioner was involved in transporting illicit liquor endangering the lives of the public. The petitioner preferred an appeal before the first respondent. The appeal was dismissed through orders dated 18.5.2001. Hence, this writ petition. The petitioner states that there was absolutely no basis for externment order against him and that the same has the effect of deprivation of his freedom and liberty. He contends that several cases registered against him ended in acquittal and that no notice was issued before impugned order was passed. The second respondent filed a detailed counter affidavit. Various acts and omissions on the part of the petitioner are mentioned in detail. It is stated that the petitioner was convicted in as many as 29 cases under A.P.Excise Act and he was also involved in the cases registered under the provisions of I.P.C. and NDPS Act etc. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Government Pleader for Home. The writ petition was admitted on 23.05.2001. No interim orders were passed. The result is that the order of externment had worked itself out. It is only for a period of six months and that period had expired long back. Therefore, the necessity for this court to deal with the contention urged on behalf of the petitioner is obviated. The writ petition is dismissed as infructuous. There shall be no order as to costs. ____________________ L.NARASIMHA REDDY, J 31.12.2008 Stp ..... REGISTRAR // TRUE COPY // SECTION OFFICER To 1.2CCs to 2.2CD copies Form-NIC-OGS/WP{JCS}