IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) FRIDAY, THE SEVENTEENTH DAY OF JULY TWO THOUSAND AND NINE PRESENT THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE B.SESHASAYANA REDDY WRIT PETITION NO : 14437 of 2005 Between: Sarada English Medium High School Sarada Nagar, Baligatham, Narsipatnam Mandal Visakhaptnam District rep by Secrtary and Correspondnet Sri. A. rAmakrishna ..... PETITIONER AND 1 Government of A.P., rep by Secretary School Education, Secrtariat, Hyderabad 2 Governmet of A.P., rep Director School of Education, Hyderabad 3 The Regional Joint Director School Education, Kakinada, East Godavari District 4 The District Educational Officer, Visakhapatnam 5 The Deputy Educational Officer, Yelamanchili Visakhapatnam District 6 The nalanda Public School, Saradanagar Baligattam/ Narsipatnam, Visakhapatnam District rep by Secrtary and Correspondnet 7 The Mnadla Educational Officer, Narasipatnam Mandal Visakhapatnam 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 action fo the 4th respondent in according recognition in favour of the 6th respondent for classes 1 to 7 for the years from 2003-04 to 2007-08 vide his LR. No. 1488/A4/2003 dt 12-12 2003 is arbitrary, illegal and against the G.O.Ms. No. 1 dt 1-1- 1004 and set aside the same and consequently direct the respondents not to accord permission any school in Narsiptnam Village as per G.O.MS. No.1 dt 1-1-1994 and pass such other order or orders as this Hon'ble Court may deem fit and proper int he circumstances of the case. Counsel for the Petitioner: MR.V.V.N.NARAYANA RAO Counsel for the Respondents : GP FOR EDUCATION The Court made the following : O R D E R : When this writ petition came up for hearing on 11.06.2009, there was no representation on behalf of the petitioner and therefore, it was directed to be listed under the caption ‘for dismissal’. Despite the matter being listed under the caption ‘for dismissal’ on this day, there is no representation on behalf of the petitioner. It indicates that the petitioner is not interested in pursuing this writ petition. Accordingly, the writ petition is dismissed for non-prosecution. No costs. ______________________ B.SESHASAYANA REDDY, J. Date:17th July, 2009. cs ..... ASSISTANT REGISTRAR // TRUE COPY // SECTION OFFICER To 1. 2. 2CD copies Form-NIC-OGS/WP{VSMI}