IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) WEDNESDAY, THE TWENTY FIFTH DAY OF FEBRUARY TWO THOUSAND AND NINE PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE N.V. RAMANA WRIT PETITION NO : 370 of 2009 Between: Basalath Ali Khan S/o. Late Azam Ali Khan R/o. H.No. 6-42, Market Road, Mancheryal, Adilabad District. ..... PETITIONER AND 1 The Government of Andhra Pradesh Rep. by the District Collector Adilabad. 2 Mancheryal Municipal Council Rep. by its Commissioner Mancheryal, Adilabad District. 3 Enaganti Rajender Rao S/o. Navaneeth Rao R/o. Mancheryal, Ward No.19, Near Shakthi ITI., Goseva Mandal Road, Adilabad District. 4 Rachakonda Venkateshwer Rao S/o. Satyanarayana R/o. Naspur Village, Mancheryal Mandal, Adilabad 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 will be pleased to issue a writ, order or direction more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus declaring the proceedings No.E1/414/New Plan Scheme/2008, dt.27/12/2008, of 1st respondent herein, regarding allotment of said two works i.e. (i) Formation of approach road on either side of Rub in Ward No. 11 and 19, covered under E1 / 777-1 / BRGF / 2008-09, with an estimated value of Rs. 7,62,958/- in favour of 4th respondent herein and (ii) Construction of CC Drain towards Saikunta Cheruvu in Ward No.11, under BRGF grants, with an estimated value of Rs.9,02,451/- covered under E1/777- 2/BRGF/CC Drain/2008-09, in favour 3rd respondent herein as arbitrary, illegal and without jurisdiction and consequently direct the 1st respondent herein to allot the said two works to the petitioner herein by canceling the allotment of said two works in favour of 4th and 3rd respondents herein. Counsel for the Petitioner: MR.K.ARVINDA RAO Counsel for the Respondents: GP FOR REVENUE The Court made the following ORDER: THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE N.V. RAMANA Writ Petition No.370 of 2009 Order: As there was no representation on behalf of the petitioner on 18.02.2009, the matter was directed to be listed today under the caption ‘for dismissal’. Even today also, when the matter is called, none appeared for the petitioner nor is there any representation made on his behalf. Hence, the writ petition is dismissed for non-prosecution. No costs. ___________________ N.V. RAMANA, J. Date: 25.02.2009 VGB