THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE R.SUBHASH REDDY WRIT PETITION No.8006 of 2011 ORDER: In this writ petition, petitioner seeks a mandamus by way of directions to the first respondent – Government to dispose of his representation, dated 09.08.2010, which was submitted as per the directions of this Court in earlier Writ Petition No.14260 of 1990. It is the grievance of the petitioner that on account of arson occurred in the city of Vijayawada on account of the death of Sri Vangaveeti Mohan Ranga Rao, Ex.MLA of Congress Party, on 26.12.1988, his shops were damaged and he has suffered loss of Rs.1,76,395/- as assessed by the authorities concerned. It is also his grievance that though there was a direction in the earlier writ petition, the first respondent has not considered the matter for payment of such compensation to him. With similar request, the petitioner filed W.P.No.14260 of 1990 and by order, dated 14.02.2001, this Court disposed of the said writ petition by permitting him to submit a representation along with the report of the assessment made by the Sub-Collector, Krishna District, on 14.02.1989 and 22.04.1989, to the Government, within a period of four (4) weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of that order and with a direction to the respondents therein to consider his claim. A perusal of proceedings, dated 02.11.2010, issued by the third respondent - Commissioner of Police, Vijayawada City, indicates that as per the directions of this Court in the earlier writ petition, the petitioner failed to approach the Sub-Collector, Krishna District. However, the petitioner filed the present writ petition seeking similar relief. Although it is contended by the learned counsel for the petitioner that there was no communication on the counsel on record about the order passed by this Court in Writ Petition No.14260 of 1990, it is to be noticed that having filed W.P.No.14260 of 1990, result of the same ought to have been enquired into and that the petitioner filed the writ petition in 1990 and it was disposed of on 14.02.2001. In spite of the fact that in the earlier writ petition, this Court permitted the petitioner to submit a representation, it appears, he has not submitted any representation to the Government. Now, after disposal of the earlier writ petition in 2001, nearly after 9 years, the present writ petition is filed in similar lines. There appears absolutely no explanation for the abnormal delay and laches on the part of the petitioner in pursuing his claim. For the aforesaid reasons, I do not find any merit in this writ petition for issuance of directions as prayed for. The writ petition is devoid of merit and it is accordingly dismissed. No order as to costs. ______________________ R.SUBHASH REDDY, J 28th MARCH, 2011. kvni