IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) TUESDAY, THE TWELFTH DAY OF AUGUST TWO THOUSAND AND EIGHT PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE V.ESWARAIAH WRIT PETITION No: 5350 of 2001 BETWEEN: 1 M. Saibaba S/o. Rajabbai @ Sathiraju, R/o.Vadlamur Village, Peddapuram Mandal, East Godavari District. 2 Y. Annapurna D/o. Satyanarayana, R/o. Govindarajupalem, Pitapuram Mandal, East Godavari District. 3 M. Padma Raju S/o. Balli Raju, R/o. Govindarajupalem, Pitapuram Mandal, East Godavari District. 4 S. Appa Rao S/o. Adinarayana, R/o. Kattamuru Village, Peddapuram Mandal, East Godavari District. 5 G. Siva Babu S/o. Late Sattabbai, Peddapuram, East Godavari District. 6 Y. Manga Rao S/o. Subba Raju, R/o. G. Ragampet Village, Peddapuram Mandal, East Godavari District. ... PETITIONERS AND 1 The Government of Andhra Pradesh, Rep. by its Principal Secretary, Irrigation & CAD Department, Secretariat, Hyderabad. 2 The Chief Engineer, Vamsadhara Yeleru Polavaram Project Unit, Dowleswaram, East Godavari District. 3 The Superintending Engineer, YRP Circle, Kakinada, East Godavari District. 4 The District Collector, Kakinada, East Godavari District. ...RESPONDENTS Petition under Article 226 of the constitution of India praying that in the circumstances stated in the Affidavit filed herein the High Court may be pleased to issue a writ, order or direction more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus declaring the impugned action of the respondents in initiating proceedings for releasing the water through Yeleru Right Canal vide G.O.Rt.No.826, dated 11.12.2000 by depriving the Ayakutdars under Yeluru Left Main Canal as highly illegal, arbitrary and violative of Art. 14 of the Constitution of India apart from contrary to the terms of Yeleru Reservoir Project and pass such other order or orders. Counsel for the Petitioners: MR.G.V.SHIVAJI Counsel for the Respondents: GP FOR IRRIGATION & COMM AREA DEV. The Court made the following: ORDER: Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that in view of the subsequent events that have taken place, the petitioners do not want to press the writ petition. Recording the above submission, the writ petition is accordingly dismissed as not pressed. There shall be no order as to costs. ______________ V. ESWARAIAH, J August 12, 2008 DSK