IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) FRIDAY, THE TWENTY SECOND DAY OF AUGUST TWO THOUSAND AND EIGHT PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE GHULAM MOHAMMED and THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE C.V.RAMULU WRIT PETITION NO : 18320 of 2008 Between: S.Bayapu Reddy S/o. S.C.Bayanna Primary Health Centre, Khajipet, Kadapa District. ..... PETITIONER AND 1 The district Medical & Health Officer, Kadapa, Kadapa District. 2 The Director of Health, A.P., Sultan Bazar, hyderabad. .....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 an appropriate writ, more particularly in the nature of writ of Madamus directing the Hon'ble A.P. Administrative Tribunal to re-open the O.A.No. 3764/2003 and dispose of the same in merits within the period to be speciried by this Hon'ble court and pass such other orer or orders as this Hon'ble Court deem fit and proper in the circumstance of the case. Counsel for the Petitioner:MR.GOPALA RAO GANDRAKOTA Counsel for the Respondent No.: GP FOR MEDICAL HEALTH & FAMI.WELFARE The Court made the following : HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE GHULAM MOHAMMED AND HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE C.V.RAMULU Writ Petition No.18320 of 2008 ORDER: (Per Hon’ble Sri Justice Ghulam Mohammed) This writ petition is ﬁled seeking a direction to Andhra Pradesh Administrative Tribunal, Hyderabad, to re- open the O.A.No.3764 of 2003 and dispose of the same on merits. 2. The petitioner had earlier ﬁled O.A.No.3764 of 2003 and subsequently, he had sought permission of the Tribunal to withdraw the said O.A., which was granted. It is thus clear that at the instance of the petitioner, the Tribunal had granted permission to withdraw the O.A. and it was accordingly dismissed as withdrawn. It appears, the petitioner had ﬁled an application seeking to review or recall the said order and the same was also dismissed. Since the petitioner had himself sought such permission pursuant to which the Tribunal has dismissed the O.A. as withdrawn, he cannot be permitted to re- open the O.A. after a lapse of more than two years of passing of the order. In the circumstances, we are not inclined to interfere with the matter in exercise of writ jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. 3. The writ petition is accordingly dismissed at the stage of admission. ___________________________ GHULAM MOHAMMED, J. ___________________ C.V.RAMULU, J. 22-08-2008 bsc