THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE E. DHARMA RAO WRIT PETITION No.6501 OF 1999 Dated: 24.08.2005 Between: K. Sanjeeva Reddy, S/o Ram Reddy. ..Petitioner And 1.The Union of India, rep., by its Secretary Ministry of Petroleum Natural Gases, New Delhi and two others. ..Respondents. THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE E. DHARMA RAO WRIT PETITION No.6501 OF 1999 ORDER: This writ petition is filed seeking a direction, in the nature of writ of Mandamus, declaring the selection done by the 3rd respondent for the L.P.G. Distributorship for Hindustan Petroleum Gas for Tadepalli Town, Guntur District, pursuant to the notification dated 1.5.1998 as illegal and arbitrary, and consequently to conduct a fresh selection for the same. It is the case of the petitioner that pursuant to the notification issued by the 2nd respondent-Corporation for allotment of LPG Distributorship, the petitioner submitted an application. On 24.2.1999 interviews were conducted and on the same day, the selected candidates’ list was also displayed. On the agitation by the public as to the mode of selection, a new board headed by the 1st respondent, was constituted. It is also the case of the petitioner that the 1st respondent is also adopting the selection made by the earlier board. Aggrieved by the said process, the present writ petition has been filed. The respondent No.2 filed a counter-affidavit denying the allegations in the writ petition and contending that the selections were made in accordance with the norms and guidelines and the selection process was already concluded and a dealership was also commissioned by effecting supplies of LPG cylinders. Heard the learned Counsel for the petitioner as well as the learned Counsel for the respondents. Perused the material available on record. Admittedly, the writ petition is of the year 1999 and the selection process, which is in dispute, is of the year 1999. Pending this writ petition, no interim orders were passed staying the selection process of the LPG distributorship. It is brought to the notice of this Court that the selection process has been concluded and the distributorship was also allotted. In this view of the matter, I hold that the issue involved in this writ petition does not survive for adjudication and hence, I see no grounds to entertain this writ petition. Accordingly, the writ petition is dismissed. No order as to costs. __________________ 24th August, 2005 Nn