THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY WRIT PETITION NO.24917 OF 2002 Dated 26th July, 2010 Between: G.Venkatesulu …Petitioner And Central Power Distribution Company of A.P Limited and Three others …Respondents Counsel for the petitioner : None appeared Counsel for the respondents: --- The Court made the following ORDER: This writ petition is filed for the following substantive relief: “It is prayed that this Hon’ble Court may be pleased to issue a writ of Mandamus or any other appropriate writ or direction declaring the action of the respondents in directing the petitioner to pay L.P.F charges for the months of September to November 2002 as illegal, arbitrary and consequently direct the respondents to refund the amount of Rs.18,174/- paid as L.P.F charges for the month of September, 2002 to the petitioner.” A perusal of the proceeding sheet shows that on 19.06.2009, it was represented to this Court that Sri O.Manohar Reddy, learned counsel, who appeared for the petitioner, has become Standing Counsel for the Andhra Pradesh Central Power Distribution Company Limited, which is the respondent in the writ petition. Taking note of this fact, this Court directed the Registry to issue notice to the petitioner to enable him to make alternative arrangements. On 06.07.2009, when the case came up, this Court noticed that order dated 19.06.2009 was not complied with. Therefore, a further direction was given to send notice. On 17.07.2009, this Court adjourned the case, as notice sent by the Office was not returned. The case underwent similar adjournments on 31.07.2009; 02.09.2009; 17.09.2009 and 24.09.2009. On 15.10.2009, this Court has again directed the Registry to issue fresh notice to the party. The case was again adjourned to 10.11.2009, on which date the case was further adjourned for awaiting service. At the hearing, Sri P.Chakravarthy, learned counsel, submitted that in spite of the efforts made by the learned counsel, who appeared in the writ petition, the petitioner has not made alternative arrangement and therefore, he made a request for an adjournment for this purpose. In my opinion, when the counsel, who appeared for the petitioner, was disabled from appearing, it is his duty to inform the party and the party is bound to make an alternative arrangement. This case is being adjourned from time to time on more than nine occasions to enable the petitioner to make alternative arrangement. The failure of the petitioner to entrust the case to another counsel shows his lack of interest in prosecuting the case. The writ petition is therefore dismissed for non-prosecution. As a sequel to dismissal of main petition for non-prosecution, WPMP Nos.31411 and 31412 of 2002 filed by the petitioner for interim relief are disposed of as infructuous. C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY, J Dated 26th July, 2010 vrn