IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) FRIDAY, THE NINETEENTH DAY OF DECEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND EIGHT PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE VILAS V. AFZULPURKAR WRIT PETITION NO : 1652 of 2001 Between: Mohammed Aleemuddin Sajju, Siddipet, Siddipet Mandal, Medak District. ..... PETITIONER AND 1 The Secretary Government of Andhra Pradesh Miniority Welfare and Wakf, Secretariat Building, Hyderabad. 2 The Andhra Pradesh STate Wakf Board Hyderabad, Rep. by its Chief Executive Officer, Monrangan Complex, Andhra Pradesh House Board Block. 3 The District Collector, Medak at Sanga Reddy. 4 The Revenue Divisional Officer, Siddipet, Division Siddipet City and Mandal, Siddipet-502 103. 5 The Commissioner City Muncipality, at Siddipet. 6 he Tanzeen-ul-Masajid (Organising of Masqus), Rep. by its President Mohd. Aliuddin, at Siddipet. .....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 a Writ order or direction or any appropriate Writ more particularly one is the nature of Writ of Mandamus declaring the action of the Respondnets 2 to 5 not taking any action against the Respondent No.6 in respect of the Wakf Property Muslim grave yard situated at Gandhi Chowk, Siddipet and make dismantling and change the its structure and graves to raise in this structure thereon any manner except the aims and object of the Wakf Property of illegal arbitrary Null and Void against the Wakf Act, Muslim law Municipal ct, and under article 1421 and 26 of the constitution of India, and grant Counsel for the Petitioner:MR.M.T.GHORI Counsel for the Respondent : MR.V.VISWANATHAM FOR R MR.MOHD. ILYAS FOR R MR.POLISETTY RADHA KRISHNA(SC FOR MPL(TA)) FOR R7.12.05,VAK-5 The Court made the following : Form-NIC-OGS/WP{KRD} HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE VILAS V. AFZULPURKAR W.P.No.1652 of 2001 ORDER: Since the learned counsel for the petitioner has reported no instructions and has stated that he has returned the brief long back to his client, on 22-09-2008 this Court has directed to issue notice to the petitioner. On 26-11-2008, when this matter was listed, the acknowledgment of the notice had not returned and as such this matter was directed to be listed on 10-12-2008. Thereafter, on 16-12- 2008, when the matter was listed together with office report of service, it was found that there no appearance was filed by any of the learned counsel. Office was, therefore, directed to post the matter again 17- 12-2008 by duly printing the name of the petitioner also in the cause list. Today, this matter appears in the list with the name of the learned counsel for the petitioner as well as the petitioner himself. However, there is no representation. 2. In the circumstances, the writ petition is dismissed for non- prosecution. No costs. ______________________ 19th December 2008 KVR