IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) MONDAY, THE THIRTEENTH DAY OF JULY TWO THOUSAND AND NINE PRESENT HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE SRI ANIL R. DAVE AND HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE R. SUBHASH REDDY WRIT PETITION No. 2078 of 2009 Between: 1. Kolli Venkateswara Rao, S/o. Veera Venkata Satyanarayana, Aithapudi, Kajaluru Mandal, East Godavari District. 2. Yella Raghava Varaprasad, S/o. Ganganna, R/o.D.No.2-144, Uppa Rajupalem Village, Kajaluru Mandal, East Godavari District. 3. Manikya Reddy Posumuniyya, S/o. Venkateswara Rao, R/o.D.No.2-127, Tippa Rajupalem Village, Kajaluru Mandal, East Godavari District. 4. Mancheela Satyanarayana, S/o. Veeraraju, R/o. Nadakuduru Village, Karapa Mandal, East Godavari District. ...Petitioners And 1. The Commissioner of Endowments, Endowments Department, Hyderabad. 2. The Deputy Commissioner of Endowments, Endowments Department, Kakinada, East Godavari District. 3. The Assistant Commissioner of Endowments, Rajahmundry, East Godavari District. 4. K.Venkata Charyulu, Aithapudi, Kajaluru Mandal, East Godavari 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 any order or direction or a writ more particularly a writ in the nature of mandamus directing the respondents herein not to implement Proceedings Rc.No.B4/20497/2008, dated 6.1.2009 issued by the 2nd respondent by declaring the same as illegal, void and without jurisdiction and pass such other order or orders. Counsel for the petitioner : Sri G. Dharma Rao Counsel for respondent Nos.1 to 3: Government Pleader for Endowments Counsel for respondent No.4 : Sri A. Gopalakrishnama Charyulu The Court made the following : ORDER: (Per Sri Anil R. Dave, C.J.) 1) When this petition was called out in the forenoon session, petitioner Nos.2 to 4 were present in the Court in pursuance of order dated 29th June, 2009 passed by this Court. On questioning them, it has been stated by petitioner Nos.2 to 4 that they do not want to pursue the petition and they want to get the petition withdrawn. The matter was passed over to afternoon so as to see whether petitioner No.1 appears before the Court. 2) When the petition was called out in the after-lunch session, petitioner No.1 has not appeared before the Court. Even at an earlier point of time, petitioner No.1 had stated that he does not want to proceed with the writ petition. 3) In the circumstances, the petition is disposed of as not pressed with no order as to costs. ANIL R. DAVE, C.J. 13th July, 2009 R. SUBHASH REDDY, J. ..... REGISTRAR To 1. The Commissioner of Endowments, Endowments Department, Hyderabad. 2. The Deputy Commissioner of Endowments, Endowments Department, Kakinada, East Godavari District. 3. The Assistant Commissioner of Endowments, Rajahmundry, East Godavari District. 4. Two copies to the Govt. Pleader for Endowments, High Court Buildings, Hyderabad (OUT). 5. Two CD copies. ARS