IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) THURSDAY, THE NINETEENTH DAY OF MARCH TWO THOUSAND AND NINE PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE R.SUBHASH REDDY WRIT PETITION NO : 9805 of 2000 Between: I.VENKATA VENUGOPAL S/o., I. Appayya R/o. Dr.No. 6-204, Prhlad Puram Post, VISAKHAPATNAM DISTRICT. ..... PETITIONER AND 1 THE A.P.S.R.T.C. Reptd. by its Chairman and Managing Director, Musheerabad, Hyderabad. 2 The A.P.S.R.T.C. Reptd. by its Regional Manager, Visakhapatnam Region, Visakhapatnam District. 3 The A.P.S.R.T.C. Reptd. by its Depot Manager, Simhachalam Depot, Simhachalam, Visakhapatnam District. .....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 an Order or direction or Writ particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus declaring the action of the 2nd Respondent and 3rd Respondent by its proceedings No.Steno/19(20)/98-RM-VSP, dt.2/2/2000 and procee.No.Steno. 95(72)/97-SML, dt. 27/6/97 is wholly illegal, arbitrary unjust and contrary to Law and also violative of Art. 14, 16 & 21 of the Constitution of India and violative of Principles of Natural Justice and consequently direct the Respondents to pay his increments with arrears to the petitioner w.e.f. 29/4/97 and pass such other Order or Orders as the Hon'ble Court may deems fit and proper under the Circumstances of the Case. Counsel for the Petitioner:MS.B.MALLESWARI Counsel for the Respondent No.: MR.K.MADHAVA REDDY(SC FOR APSRTC) The Court made the following : HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE R.SUBHASH REDDY WRIT PETITION NO : 9805 of 2000 ORDER: This writ petition was posted for hearing on 17.03.2009 and as there was no representation on behalf of the petitioner, it was directed to be listed today under the caption ‘for dismissal’. Even today, though the matter is listed under the caption ‘for dismissal’, there is no representation on behalf of the petitioner. Hence, the writ petition is dismissed for non-prosecution. No order as to costs. ------------------------------ R. SUBHASH REDDY. J MARCH 19, 2009 Tsr.