IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD FRIDAY, THE SECOND DAY OF MAY TWO THOUSAND AND EIGHT PRESENT HON'BLE ANIL R. DAVE, THE CHIEF JUSTICE and THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE R.SUBHASH REDDY WRIT APPEAL NO : 503 of 2008 (Writ Appeal under Clause 15 of the Letters Patent against the Order dated 09/04/2008 in WP NO : 16090 OF 2006 on the file of the High Court.) Between: Maddi Krishna Murthy S/o.Sreeramulu R/o.Wednesday market Bhimavaram, W.G.District ..... APPELLANT AND 1 The Collector, Civil Supplies and Addl.district Magistrate W.G.District, Eluru 2 The Revenue Divisional Officer, Narsapur, W.G,District 3 The Mandal Revenue Officer, Bhimavaram Mandal Bhimavaram, West Godavari District .....RESPONDENT(S) Counsel for the Appellant:MR.B.SATYANARAYANA Counsel for the Respondent No.: GP FOR CIVIL SUPPLIES The Court made the following : JUDGMENT: (Per Anil R. Dave, CJ) Being aggrieved by the order dated 9-4-2008 passed in WVMP No. 293 of 2008 in WPMP No. 20068 of 2008 in W.P.No.16090 of 2008, this appeal has been filed. By virtue of the impugned order, the interim order which was granted on 1-8-2006 in WPMP No.20068 of 2008 has been vacated. As the learned Advocate for the original petitioner did not remain present at the time when the application was heard, the learned single Judge presumed that the petitioner was not interested in pursuing the application and, therefore, the interim relief which was granted in favour of the original petitioner was vacated. The learned Advocate for the appellant-original petitioner appearing before this Court has submitted that because of the misunderstanding, the learned Advocate for the petitioner could not appear before the learned single Judge and there was no intention on the part of the petitioner not to pursue the application. He has explained the circumstances in which the learned Advocate for the petitioner could not remain present. Upon hearing the learned Advocates and looking to the facts of the case, particularly in the interest of justice, the impugned order is quashed and set aside so that the application can be heard afresh. As the respondents-authorities have been dragged to this litigation again only on account of the misunderstanding on the part of the petitioner, a sum of Rs.1000/- shall be paid by the petitioner by way of costs. The amount of costs shall be paid by way of an account payee cheque in the name of respondent No.2 and the cheque shall be handed over to the learned Government Pleader. Necessary Memo shall be filed in the Registry showing that the amount has been paid and the application shall be heard thereafter. The memo shall be filed within two weeks from today. The appeal is allowed with costs. ____________________ ANIL R. DAVE, CJ _________________________ R. SUBHASH REDDY, J 2nd May, 2008 GRR To 1. 2.2 CD copies