IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) MONDAY, THE SIXTH DAY OF JULY TWO THOUSAND AND NINE PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE B.SESHASAYANA REDDY WRIT PETITION NO : 13060 of 2003 Between: Smt. Rukhsana Fatima W/o Shri Abdullah H.A. Al Asaika, Now R/o H. No. 17-6-572 Dabeerpura, Hyderabad. ..... PETITIONER AND 1 Regional Passport Officer, Passport Office, Secunderabad. 2 The Inspector of Police, P.S. Market Secunderabad (crime No. 195/2001) P.S. Market, Secunderabad. .....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 order or direction more particularly one in the nature of a Writ of Mandamus or any other appropriate writ or direction, directing the Respondent No.1 to issue a passport under Tatkal Scheme applied for by the petitioner on 10-10-2001 in lieu of her damaged passport No. T 252648 dated 30-11-1994 issued by the Regional Passport Office Hyderabad, during the pendency of the FIR No. 195/2001 of P.S. Market Secunderabad and submission of a report (charge sheet) under Section 173 Cr.P.C. in the said alleged offence to enable the petitioners to visit Kingdom of Saudi Arabia and to attend her ailing minor children on such terms and conditions as may be imposed by this Hon’ble High Court. Counsel for the Petitioner: MR.M.A.BARI Counsel for the Respondent No.: . The Court made the following : ORDER: This writ petition has been filed by Smt. Rukhsana Fatima assailing the action of the Regional Passport Officer, Passport Office, Secunderabad-1st respondent in not issuing a passport under Tatkal Scheme. Rule nisi came to be issued on 11.07.2003 and an interim order also came to be passed on the even date directing the respondents to consider the request of the petitioner for issuing passport in her favour in lieu of damaged passport, vide W.P.M.P.No.16222 of 2003. Today when the writ petition came up for final hearing, there is no representation on behalf of the petitioner. It indicates that the petitioner is not interested in pursuing the writ petition. In view of the above, the writ petition is dismissed for non-prosecution. No costs. _______________________ B. SESHASAYANA REDDY, J. 6th July, 2009. CBS HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE B. SESHASAYANA REDDY Writ Petition No.13060 of 2003 (Dismissed for N.P. -NC) 6th July, 2009 CBS