IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) MONDAY, THE EIGHTH DAY OF SEPTEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND EIGHT PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY WRIT PETITION NO:7875 of 2001 Between: Rajavarapu Narasimha and others ..... PETITIONERS AND M/s.Vavilala Fishermen Cooperative Society Limited and others .....RESPONDENTS Counsel for the Petitioners:NONE APPEARED Counsel for Respondent Nos.2 & 3:AGP FOR ANIMAL HUSBANDRY The Court made the following : ORDER: This writ petition is ﬁled for the following substantive relief: “For all the reasons stated above and those that may be urged at the time of hearing, the petitioners herein pray that the Hon’ble Court be pleased to declare that the inaction of the Respondent Nos.2 and 3 herein to supervise the aﬀairs of the society, order enquiry/inspection under Sections 51 and 52 of A.P. Co- operative Societies Act, 1964 and the Rules made thereunder on the rampant misappropriation / mismanagement in conducting the aﬀairs of the society, not taking action on the quarries pointed out in the Audit Report and the failure of the Society to conduct General body meetings from past two years etc., as arbitrary, unjust, illegal and violative of the rights of the Petitioner members of the society at large and sought for consequential direction to respondent Nos.2 and 3 to initiate necessary action against the Managing Committee of the Society under the provisions of A.P. Cooperative Societies Act, 1964 to make good the society and its members thereof by issuance of Writ, order or direction more particularly a writ in the nature of writ of mandamus as this Hon’ble Court may deem ﬁt and proper in the circumstances of the case or else the petitioners herein will be put to great hardship and suffer irreparable loss.” On 06.09.2008, when the case was called, there was no representation for the petitioners and, therefore, the writ petition was adjourned for today to be posted under the caption “for dismissal”. Even today, there is no representation for the petitioners. It is, therefore, reasonable to presume that the petitioners are not interested in pursuing this writ petition. The writ petition is, therefore, dismissed in default. As a sequel to dismissal of main petition in default, WPMP.No.10033 of 2001 ﬁled by the petitioners for interim relief is disposed of as infructuous. C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY, J 8th SEPTEMBER, 2008. kvni