IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) FRIDAY, THE TWENTY SIXTH DAY OF DECEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND EIGHT PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY WRIT PETITION NO : 19217 of 1999 Between: S.r.Bhaskar Reddy, S/o R.Venkata Subba Reddy, aged 27 years, H.No.3-1126, Y.M.R.Colony, Proddatur, Cuddapah District. ..... PETITIONER AND 1. The District Cooperative Officer, Cuddapah, Cuddapah District. 2. Divisional Cooperative Officer, Proddatur, Cuddapah District. 3. Coop Sub Registrar/Person-in-charge, Proddatur Central Consumers’ Cooperative Stores Ltd., R 281, Proddatur, Cuddapah District. 4. The Proddatur Central Coop Consumers Cooperative Stores Ltd No. R 281, 4/215, Super Bazaar Road, Proddatur 516 360 Cuddapah District represented by its Managing Director. .....RESPONDENTS Counsel for the Petitioner : None. The Court made the following: ORDER: This Writ Petition is filed for the following substantive relief: “It is therefore prayed that this Honourable Court may be pleased to issue a Writ, order or direction more particularly in the nature of Writ of Mandamus declaring that the impugned orders in proceedings No.Nil, dated 31.8.99 of the 4th respondent herein i.e. the Managing Director of the Proddatur Central Consumers Cooperative Stores Ltd., No.R 281 – Super Bazaar, Proddatur, Cuddapah District issued pursuant to the directions in memo No.Nil dt.20.8.99 and the endorsement dt.31.8.99 of the 3rd respondent herein i.e., Cooperative Sub Registrar/Person-in-charge of the said stores, at the behest of the 1st respondent herein (i.e. District Cooperative Officer, Cuddapah, Cuddapah District, through memo Rc No.4962/95E dt.30.7.99, as violative of Sec 47(1) of the A.P. Shops and Establishments Act, 1988, besides hitting Articles 14 & 21 of the Constitution of India as also contrary to the cardinal principles of natural justice and hence set aside.” When the writ petition was taken up for hearing on 24.12.2008, no one appeared for the petitioner. Therefore, it was adjourned to today. Even today, when the case is posted under the caption ‘for Dismissal’, no one appeared for the petitioner. It is, therefore, reasonable to presume that the petitioner is not interested in pursuing his cause in the writ petition. The writ petition is, therefore, dismissed in default. As a sequel to dismissal of main petition in default, WPMP.No.24057 of 1999 filed by the petitioner for interim relief is disposed of as infructuous. ________________________ C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY, J Dated:26.12.2008 GJ