IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) FRIDAY, THE TWENTY FOURTH DAY OF APRIL TWO THOUSAND AND NINE PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE R.SUBHASH REDDY WRIT PETITION NO : 1925 of 2007 Between: Guntur Nagara Palaka Samsta Karmika Samikiya Sangham (Workers Trade union No.C-2369 rep by its General Secretary Gudepu Aswani Kumar S/o g. Srinivasa Rao aged 40 years, R/o 14-4-186, 5th Line, Pothurivarythota, Guntur. ..... PETITIONER AND 1 The Government of Andhra Pradesh, rep by Principal Secretary Municipal Administration & Urban Development (G2) Department, Secretariat, Hyderabad. 2 The Commissioner & Director of Municpal Administration, Government of Andhra Pradesh, Hyderabad. 3 The Municipal Corporation of Guntur, rep by its Commissioner Guntur, Guntur District. 4 The municipal Council, rep by Mayor Guntur Municipal Corportion, Guntur. 5 The Standing Committee, rep by Chairman Guntur Municipal Corporation, Guntur. .....RESPONDENTS Petition under Article 226 of the constitution of India praying that in the circumstances stated in the Affidavit filed herein the High Court will be pleased to issue a Writ of Mandamus or any other appropriate Writ, order or direction, declaring the action of the respondents 3 and 4 in allotting the sanitation Work to the five Society and DWCUA Groups as mentioned inthe petition under G.O.Ms. No. 30 M.A. Dated 18-06- 2000 is illegal, arbitrary and unconstitutional for doing sanitation works in Municipal Corporation of Guntur and pass such other order or orders as this Honourable Court may deem fit and proper in the circumstances of the case. Counsel for the Petitioner: SRI M.SOHAN Counsel for Respondents 1 and 2: GP FOR MUNCIPAL ADMN. & URBAN DEV. Counsel for respondents 3 to 5: SRI S.NAGESWAR REDDY The Court made the following : THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE R.SUBHASH REDDY WRIT PETITION No.1925 of 2007 ORDER: Since none appeared for the petitioner on 23.04.2009, the matter was directed to be posted for dismissal. Today, though the matter is listed under the caption “for dismissal”, neither the counsel for the petitioner is present nor is there any representation on his behalf. The writ petition is, accordingly, dismissed for default. No costs. ___________________ R.SUBHASH REDDY,J 24.04.2009 v v