asserts the Court of Appeals violated his right to procedural due process under the Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution by denying his petition for rehearing prior to reviewing his timely reply to Bundy’s return to his petition for rehearing. He claims the remedy for this due process violation is for this Court to grant certiorari to review the decision of the Court of Appeals. We find this issue is moot as Shirley received the requested relief when this Court granted his petition for a writ of certiorari. See Curtis v. State, 345 S.C. 557, 549 S.E.2d 591 (2001) (stating that a case becomes moot when judgment, if rendered, will have no practical legal effect upon existing controversy); Waters v. S.C. Land Res. Conservation Comm’n, 321 S.C. 219, 467 S.E.2d 913 (1996) (<HOLDING>). However, even assuming the issue is proper
holding that actual controversy requirement is met where there is a substantial controversy between parties having adverse legal interests of sufficient immediacy and reality to warrant the issuance of a declaratory judgment recognizing need for justiciable controversy before a court can reach a deci sion on a particular issue holding that the case presented no justiciable controversy and that a review of the matter would render an improper advisory opinion recognizing that a justiciable controversy is a real and substantial controversy that is ripe and appropriate for judicial determination as opposed to a dispute or difference of contingent hypothetical or abstract character holding that any controversy as to whether the prerequisites of article iii section 50 have been met is ripe for judicial determination when the secretary of state makes a decision to submit or refuse to submit an initiative to the voters