IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) WEDNESDAY, THE SEVENTEENTH DAY OF JUNE TWO THOUSAND AND NINE PRESENT THE HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE and THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE RAMESH RANGANATHAN WRIT PETITION NO : 27747 of 1998 Between: R.Nagender S/o Narsaiah R/o Jyoti Nagar Colony , Kakaguda, Secunderabad. ..... PETITIONER AND 1 The Contonment Executive Officer, Secunderabad, Contonment Board, Secunderabad. 2 The President of Contonment Board, Secunderabad Contonment Board, Secunderabad. 3 The District Collector, Hyderabad 4 The Hyderabad Metropolitan Water supply and Sewerage Board rep by Vice Chairman and Managing Director, Hyderabad 5 The Municipal Corporation of Hyderabad, Rep by Commissioner and Special Officer, 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 issue a Writ, Order more particularly in the nature of Writ of Mandamus declaring the action of the Respondent 1 in causing the hurdles for the supply of water to the localities namely Valmiki Nagar, Kakaguda, Jyothi Colony, Brook Bond Colony, Teacher's Colony, Kiran Enclaves, Jawahar Colony, Priya Colony, Shantideep Colony, Jupiter Colony, Jyothi Venkataramaiah and Ayyappa Colony, Kakaguda, New Vasavi Naagar where the RCC pipelines were already laid as being arbitrary, discriminatory, contrary to the directive principles of the State policy , violative, contrary to the guarantee of right to life enshrined in Art. 14,15, 16 and 21 of the Constitution of India and consequently direct the respondents to take immediate steps for supply of water through the RCC Water pipe lines laid under the MPLAD an MLA funds without making the application the embargo imposed in the statutes Counsel for the Petitioner: MR.S.TULASI DAS (not present) Counsel for the Respondent No.1: Sri Y.V. Ravi Prasad Counsel for Respondent No.4: Smt. M. Venkateswari Counsel for Respondent No.5. Smt. G. Jyothi Kiran The Court made the following : ORAL ORDER: (Per Sri Anil R. Dave, CJ) When this petition was notified for final hearing on 11-06-2009, the learned advocate for the petitioner was absent and, therefore, in the interest of justice, the hearing was adjourned to 17-06- 2009 i.e., today. 2. Even today, when the matter was called out, the learned advocate for the petitioner was absent. 3. In the circumstances, the petition is dismissed for default. ANIL R. DAVE, CJ RAMESH RANGANATHAN, J 17th June, 2009 ks