IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) MONDAY, THE TWENTY FIRST DAY OF APRIL TWO THOUSAND AND EIGHT PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE GODA RAGHURAM WRIT PETITION NO : 8030 of 2004 Between: S. Kasim Bee, W/o. S. Mohammed Hussain, rep by its Authorised Agent,k Varanasi Venkata Krishnaiah, S/o. Gopala Krishnaiah, age 62 years, R/o. 6/6, Brahman Street, Porumilla Mandal, Kadapa District. ..... PETITIONER AND 1 The District Collector, Kadapa. 2 The Revenue Divisional Officer, Rajampet, Kadapa District. 3 The Mandal Revenue Officer, Kasinayana Mandal, Kadapa District. 4 Kondaramana Reddy, age 28 years, S/o. Konda Chinna Rami Reddy, R/o. Konda Chinna Rami Reddy, R/o. Munnelli Village, M. Rajupalem, B. Kodur Mandal, Kadapa District. .....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 a an order or writ one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus, declaring the action of the Respondents No. 1 to 3 in not taking steps against the 4th respondents No. 1 to 3 in not taking steps against the 4th respondent for not surrendering the D.K.T. NO. 32/1411, dt. 05-02-2002 as arbitrary, illegal, unjust and violative of Principles of Natural justice and consequently call for the records in pursuance to proceedings No. C/32/2002, dt. 05-02- 2002 of the 3rd respondents and pass Counsel for the Petitioner: SMT.N.SHOBA Counsel for the Respondent No.: GP FOR REVENUE The Court made the following: ORAL ORDER: The writ petition is misconceived. One Varanasi Venkata Krishnaiah s/o Gopala Krishnaiah deposed to an affidavit in support of the writ petition filed by one S.Kasim Bee w/o S. Mohammed Hussain. Paragraph No.1 of the affidavit filed in support of the writ petition states that the deponent is the authorized signatory for the petitioner to file the writ petition, as she is bedridden and unable to come and file the writ petition. No authorization or general power of attorney or an attorney executed by the writ petitioner in favour of the deponent is filed into the Court nor is there any pleading as to the basis for the deponent’s claim as to authorization by the writ petitioner. The deponent cannot therefore be considered a recognized agent of the writ petitioner-S.Kasim Bee. In the circumstances above, without going into the merits of the case, the writ petition is dismissed for having been filed with an accompanying affidavit pleaded and signed by a person not shown to be a recognized agent of the writ petitioner. The writ petitioner-S. Kasim Bee is however at liberty to institute a fresh writ petition in accordance with law, if so advised. The writ petition is dismissed. No costs. ____________________ GODA RAGHURAM, J Dated: 21-04-2008 Pvks/*