IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) FRIDAY, THE TENTH DAY OF JULY TWO THOUSAND AND NINE PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE R.SUBHASH REDDY WRIT PETITION NO : 8927 of 2003 Between: 1 M/s. Bommanna Brothers, Rep. by its Proprietor, Mr. Bomma Arvind Kumar, S/o Durga Prasada Rao, H.No. 4-5-367/A, Esamia Bazar, Koti Hyderabad. R/o Flat No.60, Gun Rock, Enclave, Secunderabad. 2 M/s. Bommanna Brothers, Rep. by its Proprietor, Mr. Bomma Arvind Kumar, S/o Durga Prasada Rao, H.No. 4-1-938/41 to 44 Tilak Road, Opp. Surya Theatre, Abids, Hyderabad, R/o Flat No.60, Gun Rock, Enclave, Secunderabad. 3 M/s. Bommanna Brothers, Rep. by its Proprietor, Mr. Bomma Arvind Kumar, S/o Durga Prasada Rao, H.No. 3-3-604/612, Opp: Anjuali Theatre, Abids, Hyderabad, R/o Flat No.60, Gun Rock, Enclave, Secunderabad. 4 M/s. Bommanna Brothers, Rep. by its Proprietor, Mr. Bomma Arvind Kumar, S/o Durga Prasada Rao, H.No. 7-1-927, Opp:Bata, RP Road, Secunderabad. Hyderabad, R/o Flat No.60, Gun Rock, Enclave, Secunderabad. ..... PETITIONERS AND 1 The Municipal Corporation of Hyderabad, Rep. by its Commissioner, Tank Band Road, Hyderabad 2 The Addl. Commissioner (Finance) Advertisement Section, M.C.H. Tank bund Road, Hyderabad. .....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 an appropriate Writ order or direction more particularly in the nature of Writ of Mandamus, declaring the action of the respondents in treating the name Boards/board frames fixed by the parapet wall of my business places are as covered by Section 420 and 421 of the HMC Act and consequently demanding the fees for the same is illegal, arbitrary, capricious and in violation of the principles of natural justice. Counsel for the Petitioner : MR.P.SRIHARI Counsel for the Respondents : SMT.KALPANA EKBOTE The Court made the following : ORDER: This Writ Petition was listed for hearing on 09-07-2009, and as there was no representation for the petitioners on that day, it was ordered to be posted today under the caption ‘for dismissal’. Although the matter is posted under the caption ‘for dismissal’, today also, there is no representation on behalf of the petitioners. 2. Hence, the Writ Petition is dismissed for non-prosecution. No order as to costs. ____________________ R.SUBHASH REDDY, J. 10th July, 2009. skmr