THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE VENKATESWARLU NIMMAGADDA WRIT PETITON Nos.9866 and 21598 of 2008 COMMON ORDER: Since the issue involved in both the writ petitions is one and the same, these writ petitions can be decided by way of a common order. 2. When the matter is taken for hearing, it is observed from the docket order in W.P.No.9866 of 2008, that there is no representation on behalf of the petitioners from the last several occasions. On 26.06.2025, this Court was informed that the learned counsel for the petitioner is no more. In view of the same, Registry is directed to issue notices to the petitioners in W.P.No.9866 of 2008. But the notice issued to petitioner No.1 was returned as un-served on the ground that the petitioner No.1 died and notices issued to petitioner Nos. 3 to 7 returned with an endorsement ‘insufficient address’. Today also, there is no representation on behalf of the petitioners. 3. Heard learned counsel for the respondents. 4. Learned counsel for the respondents submits that these writ petitions are filed challenging the cancellation of lease agreements granted in the year 2005. He further submits that the said lease was granted for a period of ten (10) years. Pending writ petitions, the lease period which was granted for a period of ten year was already expired more than a decade ago. Therefore, the cause in these writ petitions does not survive and no further orders are required to be passed. 5. Recording the said submission, these writ petitions are dismissed as infructuous. There shall be no order as to costs. As a sequel, miscellaneous petitions, if any, pending shall stand closed. __________________________________ VENKATESWARLU NIMMAGADDA, J 03.02.2026 BSP 49 HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE VENKATESWARLU NIMMAGADDA WRIT PETITION NOs.9866_and 21598_of 2008 03.02.2026 BSP