APHC010707752016 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH (Special Original Jurisdiction) THURSDAY, THE TWENTY FIFTH DAY OF SEPTEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE MAHESWARA RAO KUNCHEAM WRIT PETITION Between: K. Vijayanand S/o Devadanam The State Of Andhra Pradesh Rep By The and Others Counsel for the Petitioner: 1. GANGISETTY RAJESWARA RAO Counsel for the Respondent(S): 1. K MALLIKHARJUNA MOORTHY 2. GP FOR HOUSING (AP) IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) THURSDAY, THE TWENTY FIFTH DAY OF SEPTEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE MAHESWARA RAO KUNCHEAM WRIT PETITION NO: 23930/2016 K. Vijayanand S/o Devadanam ...PETITIONER AND The State Of Andhra Pradesh Rep By The and Others ...RESPONDENT(S) Counsel for the Petitioner: GANGISETTY RAJESWARA RAO Counsel for the Respondent(S): K MALLIKHARJUNA MOORTHY GP FOR HOUSING (AP) IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH [3504] THURSDAY, THE TWENTY FIFTH DAY OF SEPTEMBER THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE MAHESWARA RAO KUNCHEAM ...PETITIONER ...RESPONDENT(S) 2 MRK,J W.P.No.23930 of 2016 The Court made the following ORDER: This Writ Petition, under Article 226 of the Constitution of India by the petitioner, is filed seeking the following main relief : “….to issue a writ order or direction more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus declaring vide proceedings Rc.No. Vig / Rampalli / Lokayuktha / 600 / 15, dated 24.6.2016 without providing any opportunity or without issuing any notice to him as illegal, arbitrary and violation of principles of natural justice apart from being violative of fundamental rights guaranteed under Articles 14, 19 and 21 of the Constitution of India and consequently set aside the same in the interest of justice....” 2. When the matter is taken up for hearing, Sri G.Rajeswara Rao, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri K.Mallikarjuna Murthy, learned Standing Counsel for 1st respondent / Housing were present. 3. The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that in view of subsequent events taken place in the lis, the cause in the writ petition does not survive for further adjudication and it has become infructuous. 3. In view of the submission made by the learned counsel for the petitioner, the Writ Petition is dismissed as infructuous. There shall be no order as to costs. As a sequel, all pending applications shall stand closed. _______________________________ JUSTICE MAHESWARA RAO KUNCHEAM Date: 25.09.2025 GRL 3 MRK,J W.P.No.23930 of 2016 177 THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE MAHESWARA RAO KUNCHEAM 177 WRIT PETITION No.23930 of 2016 Date: 25.09.2025 GRL