THE HONBLE Ms. JUSTICE G. ROHINI WRIT PETITION No.22781 of 2006 ORAL ORDER: Sri Christapher, representing Sri N. Ramchander Rao, learned counsel for the petitioner, states that the cause in the writ petition does not survive and, therefore, no further adjudication is necessary. The writ petition is accordingly dismissed as infructuous. No costs. 28.07.2008. Kgr IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) MONDAY, THE TWENTY EIGHTH DAY OF July TWO THOUSAND AND EIGHT PRESENT THE HON'BLE Ms. JUSTICE G.ROHINI WRIT PETITION No. 22781 of 2006 Between: P. Ramulu S/o. Kommalu, R/o. Bakkavanthulagudem Village, Matampalli Mandal, Nalgonda District. ..... PETITIONER AND 1 The District Collector, Nalgonda District. 2 The Asst. Director of Fisheries, Nalgonda District. 3 The Fisheries Development Officer, Suryapet, Nalgonda District. 4 The President, Fishermen Co-op. Society, Choutapalli, Nalgonda District. 5 The Deputy Director of Fisheries, Nalgonda District 6 The Asst. Director, Fisheries, Suryapet, Nalgonda 7 The Election officer, Fishermen Cooperative Society, Choutapally, Nalgonda District RR 5 to 7 impleaded as per court order dated 6-11-2006 in WPMP 29349 of 2006 .....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 an appropriate writ order or direction more specifically one in the nature of writ of Mandamus declaring the action of the respondent No. 3 in conducting the elections on 7-11-2006 issuance of incorrect list of members as illegal, arbitrary, contrary to Sec. 22 (b), 4 (d) Section 21 of the A.P. Co-operative Societies Act, 1964 and unconstitutional and consequently directing the respondent No.3 to stop the election on 7-11-2006 in Choutapalli Village, Nalgonda District, and pass such other order or orders which this Hon'ble Court may deem fit in the facts and circumstances of the case. Counsel for the Petitioner: Mr. N. RAMACHANDRA RAO Counsel for the Respondents: GP FOR COOPERATION The Court made the following: