APHC010256672025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI WRIT APPEAL NO: 741 of 2025 Bench Sr.No:-12 [3552] Rayudu Arjuna Rao and another ...Appellants Vs. State of Andhra Pradesh and others ...Respondents ********** Advocate for Appellants : Mr. Pala Karthi Kiran Advocate(s) for Respondent(s) : GP for Cooperation for R.1 Mrs. Y Maha Lakshmi for R.2 Mr. N Siva Reddy for R.3 CORAM : THE CHIEF JUSTICE DHIRAJ SINGH THAKUR SRI JUSTICE CHALLA GUNARANJAN DATE : 31st October, 2025 P C : The present writ appeal has been preferred against the judgment and order, dated 19.08.2024 passed in WP.No.20562 of 2017. 2. The petitioners had preferred the writ petition seeking issuance of a writ in the nature of a Mandamus to prevent the official respondents from evicting the petitioners from the property without adopting due process of law. 3. The learned single Judge held that the premises in question which was in occupation of the petitioners was allotted to the father of the first petitioner who had since passed away and further that the premises in question was so allotted in his capacity as an employee of the East Godavari Cooperative Marketing Society Limited. 2 HCJ & CGR, J WA_741_2025 The learned single Judge held that the premises could not be occupied forever even after the father of the 1st petitioner had retired from the society. It is in those circumstances, while dismissing the writ petition the petitioners were directed to handover possession within a period of two and a half months. 4. Learned counsel for the appellants would submit that instead of issuing a direction to the official respondents not to evict the petitioners – appellants herein except by resorting to due process of law, the learned single Judge had committed an error in law in issuing directions to the petitioners to vacate the premises in question within the period of two and a half months from the date of receipt of a copy of the order by the aforesaid society which was a direction which was neither prayed for by the petitioners nor insisted upon by the official respondents. It is, therefore, urged that such a direction could not have at all been given. 5. When the matter initially came up before this Court, a coordinate Bench of this Court stayed the operation of the judgment and order impugned. However, at the same time, allowed liberty to the respondents to initiate action to evict the appellants in accordance with law. 6. Now, an application has been filed by respondent No.3 seeking vacation of the interim order, dated 28.07.2025, on the ground that the premises in question have since been demolished and the vacant site handed 3 HCJ & CGR, J WA_741_2025 over to the said respondent on 21.07.2025 i.e., much before the passing of the order by this Court on 28.07.2025. It is stated that bids were invited from eligible entities in sealed covers for purposes of allotting the contract of demolition of the premises in question, which demolition was completed and the vacant site handed over on 21.07.2025. To be precise, the demolition work was executed between 16.07.2025 and 18.07.2025 with the requisite assistance from the police department. If that be so, the issue does not survive any longer and the present appeal is in fact rendered infructuous. 7. The Writ Appeal is, accordingly, disposed of. No order as to costs. Miscellaneous applications pending, if any, shall stand closed. DHIRAJ SINGH THAKUR, CJ CHALLA GUNARANJAN, J Vjl