IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) THURSDAY, THE FIRST DAY OF MAY TWO THOUSAND AND EIGHT PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE V.ESWARAIAH WRIT PETITION NO : 3086 of 2005 Between: J.Srinivasa Reddy S/o. Sri J.Satyanarayana Reddy, R/o.Flat No.102, Sri Padmaja Paradise, Srinagar Colony, Hyderabad. ..... PETITIONER AND 1The Commissioner of Police Hyderabad City 5th Floor, Commissioner of Police Complex Basheerbagh X Roads,Hyderabad. 2Deputy Commissioner of Police, Central Crime Station (Detective Department) Opp.Margadarsi Chit Funds Ltd., Public Garden, Hyderabad. 3Inspector of Police Banjarahills Police Station, Banjara hills, Hyderabad. 4Inspector of Police Central Crime Station (Detective Department) Opp. Margadarsi Chit Funds Ltd., Public Garden,Hyderabad. 5Commissioner of Police Cyberabad, Ranga Reddy District. 6Inpsector of Police, Pet Basheerabad Police Station, Kompally Mandal, R.R.District. 7D.Uma Pathi Reddy S/o.Bucha Reddy R/o. Plot No.148/A MLA colony Banjara Hills, Hyderabad. 8B.Atchuta Reddy, S/o.Bucha Reddy Plot No.148/A MLA's Colony Banjara Hills, Hyderabad. 9D.Bheem Reddy, S/o.Bucha Reddy R/o.Plot No.148/A MLA's Colony Banjara Hills, Hyderabad. .....RESPONDENT(S) 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 to issue a writ, order or orders, more particulalry one in the nature of writ of Mandamus declaring the action of the respondents 2 and 3 in so far as illegally locking the petitioners godown situated at Pet Basheerabad, Kompelly Mandal Ranga Reddy District on 17/11/2004, ( Where the petitioner has stocked loose machine parts and accessories of Heavy duty 4/5 Colour off-set Printing Machineand a few small printing machiens inassembled condition) with a steel Pad lock that contained the signature of 3rd respondent on a white paper and pasted on the pad lock without following any procedure or law, as amounting to highly arbitrary, illegal and unconstitutional and consequently to direct the 5th respondent to take appropriate action against respondents7-9 basing of the complaints lodged by petitioner on 17/11/2004 and 18/11/2004 with the 6th respondent, as per law and pass such other order or orders asmay be deemed fit and proper in the interest of justice. Counsel for the Petitioner:MR.GOPALA KRISHNA KALANIDHI Counsel for the Respondents: GP FOR HOME The Court made the following : ORDER: The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that the counsel has given no objection and therefore, he has no instructions to appear in the matter. Hence, it is the duty of the petitioner either to argue the matter in person or to engage an advocate to represent his case. When the matter was called on 24.04.2008, none appeared and hence, it was posted to next week under the caption ‘for dismissal’. Today also none appeared. Hence, the writ petition is dismissed for non-prosecution. There shall be no order as to costs. ______________ V.ESWARAIAH, J. Date:01.05.2008 Ccm To 1.2CCs to 2.2CD copies Form-NIC-OGS/WP{MPL}