IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) FRIDAY, THE SEVENTEENTH DAY OF OCTOBER TWO THOUSAND AND EIGHT PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY WRIT PETITION NO:3213 of 2003 Between: The Venkateswara Boatsman Cooperative Society Ltd., Regd. no. W.R. 478, Sidhantam, Penugonda Mandal, W.G.dist Rep. by its President Sri M. Satyanarayan, S/o. Venkanna R/o. Sidhantam, West Godavari District. ..... PETITIONER AND 1 The District Level Committee, Rep. by its Chariman, Eluru, West Godavari District. 2 The District Panchayat Officer, Eluru, West Godavari District. 3 The Asst. Executive Engineer, Vasista Right Bank, Sidhantam, West Godavari District. 4 The Asst. Executive Engineer, Vasista Left Bank, Gopalapuram, East Godavari District. 5 M/s Larsen & Turbo Limited, Rep. by its Project manager, Sri G. Viond, E.C.G. Division, Bridge Site at Siddantam, East Godavari District. 6 The District Level Committee, Rep. by its Chariman, Kakinada, E. G. District. 7 The District Panchayat Officer, E.G . Dist. .....RESPONDENTS Counsel for the Petitioner:SMT. P.VIJAYALAKSHMI FOR SMT.N.SHOBA 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 hereby prayed that this Hon’ble Court may be to issue a Writ, order or direction more particularly in the nature of Mandamus, declaring the action of the respondents herein in permitting the 5th respondent herein to form a new ramp at 32-B i.e., between KM 30/0 and 47/6 at Goplalapuram Village, Vasita Left Bank, Vasista Godavari River, East Godavari District as illegal, arbitrary and violative of the orders of this Hon’ble Court in W.P. NO. 35385 / 1997 dt; 23.03.1998 and consequently direct the respondents herein to cancel / close the new camp a 32/B i.e., between 30/0 and 47/6 of Vasista Left Bank at Gopalapuram Village, forthwith.” At the hearing, Smt. P.Vijayalakshmi, learned counsel representing Smt. N.Shoba, learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the 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, WPMP.No.4207 of 2003 ﬁled by the petitioner for interim relief is disposed of as infructuous. C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY, J 17th OCTOBER, 2008. kvni