IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) TUESDAY, THE TWENTY SEVENTH DAY OF JULY TWO THOUSAND AND TEN PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY WRIT PETITION No.9248 of 2004 Between: A. Sri Rama Chandra Murthy & others. … Petitioners And The Addl. Director General of Police, CBCID, A.P., Hyderabad & others. … Respondents Counsel for the Petitioners: None Counsel for respondents 1-3&5: AGP for Home Counsel for respondent No.6: Sri Bojja Tarakam Senior Counsel The Court made the following: THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY WRIT PETITION No.9248 of 2004 ORDER: This writ petition is filed for the following substantive relief: “… Hon’ble Court may be pleased to issue an order or direction more in the nature of writ of Mandamus declaring the action of the respondents in registering the Crime No.23 of 2003 of CID., Hyderabad under Section 3(1)(viii) (ix) 3(vii) of S.C., S.T. (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 and proceeding with the investigation contrary to the judgment of this Hon’ble Court dated 06.01.2003 in WP.No.25527 of 2000 and WP.No.24608 of 2000 and also contrary to the provisions of the S.C., S.T. (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989, as illegal, arbitrary, without jurisdiction, malafide and abuse of power and declare the same as void abinitio, null and void and nonest in the eye of law.” When the vacate stay application came up for hearing on 25.01.2010, the matter was adjourned as no one appeared. On 30.06.2010, a request for adjournment was made by the learned counsel for the petitioners and accordingly the matter was adjourned. On 16.07.2010, there was no representation for the petitioners. Therefore, the matter was adjourned to 23.07.2010 for being posted under the caption “for dismissal”. On 23.07.2010, when the matter was taken up for hearing, a request for adjournment was made on behalf of the learned counsel for the petitioners on the ground that the arguing counsel was not well. Accordingly, the matter has been adjourned. Even today, when the matter is called, there is no representation for the petitioners. It is therefore reasonable to presume that the petitioners are not interested in pursuing their cause in the writ petition. The writ petition is accordingly dismissed for non-prosecution. As a sequel to dismissal of the writ petition for non-prosecution, WPMP.No.11878 of 2004 and WVMP.No.1925 of 2004 are also dismissed. __________________________ C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY, J Date: 27.07.2010. ES