IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) THURSDAY, THE TWENTY FOURTH DAY OF APRIL TWO THOUSAND AND EIGHT PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE V.ESWARAIAH WRIT PETITION No: 24188 of 2004 BETWEEN: 1 Smt. P. Lakshmi, W/o. Late P. Ramchander Rao, R/o. 196, Nicholson's Road, Tadbund, Secunderabad. 2 Smt. Hemalatha, W/o. Dr. S. Pramod Naidu, R/o. 75A, East Marredpalli, Secunderabad. 3 Dr. S. Nirmala, W/o. Dr. S. Chandra Sekhar Rao, R/o. plot No. 170 Road No. 10-C, MLAs, MPs Colony, Jubilee Hills, Hyderabad. 4 Mrs. Madhuri, W/o. Dr. Srinivas, R/o. Nizamabad. 5 Mrs. Trilekha, W/o. Dr. Sunil, R/o. Bhimavaram, West Godavari District. ... PETITIONERS AND 1 Government of A.P rep by its Principal Secretary, Home Department, Secretariat, Hyderabad. 2 Commissioner of Police, Hyderabad. 3 Assistant Commissioner of Police, Begumpet, Hyderabad. 4 Station House Officer, Women Police Station Begumpet, Hyderabad. 5 Smt P. Lavanya Latha, W/o. P. Durga Prasad, R/o. AJ 96, 9th Main Road, A.J. Block, Anna Nagar, Chennai, Tamil Nadu. ...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 any appropriate Writ, order or direction preferably a writ in the nature of Writ of Mandamus declaring the F.I.R. NO. 79 of 2004 on the file of the 4th respondent, in so far it is against the petitioners herein, as being illegal, arbitrary and violative of Art. 14 and 21 of the Constitution of India and consequently stay all further proceedings in furtherance to the said F.I.R. in so far as the petitioners herein are concerned, and pass such other order or orders Counsel for the Petitioners: MR.T.SURYA SATISH Counsel for the Respondents: GP FOR HOME MR. A. SUDERSHAN REDDY The Court made the following: ORDER: When the matter was taken up for hearing on 17.04.2008, as neither the petitioners appeared nor there was any representation on their behalf, the matter was directed to be listed under the caption ‘For Dismissal’. Today also when the matter is taken up for hearing neither the petitioners appear nor there is any representation on their behalf. The writ petition is accordingly dismissed for default vacating the interim order granted earlier by this Court on 28.12.2004 and it is kept open to the respondents to complete the investigation and file a final report/charge sheet, as the case may be, without any further delay. There shall be no order as to costs. ______________ V. ESWARAIAH, J April 24, 2008 DSK