APHC010010542015 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH THURSDAY ,THE THIRD DAY OF APRIL TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE NYAPATHY VIJAY WRIT PETITION NO: 11757 OF Between: Chedella Ramakrishna, Krishna Dist The State of Andhra Pradesh, rep., by its Principal Secretary and Others Counsel for the Petitioner: 1. BONTHU RAJANI Counsel for the Respondent(S): 1. SAI GANGADHAR CHAMARTY 2. T S VENKATARAMANA 3. GP-MUNCIPAL ADMN AND URBAN DEV(AP) The Court made the following: IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) THURSDAY ,THE THIRD DAY OF APRIL TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE NYAPATHY VIJAY WRIT PETITION NO: 11757 OF 2015 Chedella Ramakrishna, Krishna Dist AND The State of Andhra Pradesh, rep., by its Principal ...RESPONDENT(S) Counsel for the Petitioner: Counsel for the Respondent(S): SAI GANGADHAR CHAMARTY T S VENKATARAMANA MUNCIPAL ADMN AND URBAN DEV(AP) The Court made the following: IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH [3460] THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE NYAPATHY VIJAY ...PETITIONER ...RESPONDENT(S) THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE NYAPATHY VIJAY WRIT PETITION NO: 11757 OF 2015 ORDER: This Writ Petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, seeking the following relief: “…..to issue a Writ, Order or direction more particularly one in the nature of Writ of mandamus declaring the inaction on the part of 2nd respondent on the petitioners representation submitted by way of legal notice dated 05.04.2014 and complaint dated 05.12.2014 submitted by the petitioner for taking action against the respondents 3 and 4 for carrying unlawful business without license and for cancellation of license of the shop situated in Door No.27-23-46 situated at Gopalareddy Road, Governorpet, Vijayawada city, as illegal, irregular, irrational, amounts to non discharge of legal obligation conferred on 2nd respondent under the provisions of Hyderabad Municipal Corporations Act, 1955 and rules framed there under and offends Articles 14 and 21 of Constitution of India and consequently direct the 2nd respondent to remove said unlawful business of respondents 3 and 4 and pass such other orders....” 2. Learned Standing Counsel for the respondents would submit that as the respondents have vacated the subject premises, the cause in this Writ Petition does not survive for an adjudication by this Court. 3. Accordingly, the Writ Petition is dismissed as infructuous. No order as to costs. As a sequel, miscellaneous applications pending, if any, shall stand closed. __________________ NYAPATHY VIJAY, J Date: 03.04.2025 KK