APHC010076692016 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3333] WEDNESDAY ,THE EIGHTH DAY OF JANUARY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SMT JUSTICE V.SUJATHA WRIT PETITION NO: 34661/2016 Between: C.s. Mohammed Shameer, ...PETITIONER AND The State Of Andhra Pradesh and Others ...RESPONDENT(S) Counsel for the Petitioner: 1. K SRINIVAS Counsel for the Respondent(S): 1. S MD HANEEF 2. GP-MUNCIPAL ADMN AND URBAN DEV(AP) 3. A S C BOSE (SC FOR MUNICIPAL CORPORATIONS AP) The Court made the following: ORDER: The present Writ Petition came to be 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 action of the 2nd respondent in not considering the representation of the petitioner Dt.30.09.2016 against the 3rd respondent for illegally constructing the building without approval or permission itself is illegal, arbitrary and in violation of principles of natural justice, and consequently direct the 2nd respondent to take action on the representation Dt.30.09.2016 by directing the 3rd respondent not to construct the building in Door No.3-15, R.S. Road, Opp. DCC Bank, YSR Kadapa within the jurisdiction of the 2nd respondent limits and pass…” 2. Today when the matter came up for hearing, Sri A.S.C.Bose, learned Standing Counsel appearing for the respondent No.2 has furnished a copy of instructions dated 06.01.2025 issued by the City Planner, Kadapa Municipal Corporation, wherein it is stated that after receiving the representation from the petitioner, the staff of the respondent-office had visited the site premises and noticed that the respondent No.3 is trying to raise temporary sheds in the subject land unauthorizedly for opening chicken shop. As such, the said construction was removed by the respondent authorities on 09.11.2016 and the same was informed to the petitioner vide office endorsement in Roc.No.1649/2016/KMC/G1, dated 10.11.2016. 3. In view of the fact that in pursuance of the petitioner’s representation and after conducting an enquiry, the said unauthorized construction was already removed, this Court is of the opinion that the cause in the writ petition does not survive for further adjudication. 4. Accordingly, the Writ Petition is dismissed as infructuous. There shall be no order as to costs. Miscellaneous petitions pending, if any, in this Writ Petition shall stand closed. ___________________ JUSTICE V.SUJATHA Date: 08.01.2025 SRT 326 THE HONOURABLE SMT.JUSTICE V.SUJATHA W.P.No.34661 of 2016 Date: 08.01.2025 SRT