IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) FRIDAY, THE TWELFTH DAY OF JUNE TWO THOUSAND AND NINE PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE B.SESHASAYANA REDDY WRIT PETITION NO : 12066 of 2001 Between: S.Keshava Reddy son of Late S.Venkat Reddy 2-4-31, Tadbund Hanuman Temple, Secunderabad-09 ..... PETITIONER AND 1 Principle Secretary Government of India southern Block, New Delhi 2 Director General Civil Aviation, Technical Centre, Opposite Sardhar Jung Airport, New Delhi 3 Driector (Ops) Aerodrome Standards The Director General of Civil Aviation New Delhi-110003 4 Director Airport Authority of India Rajiv Gandhi Airport, Begumpet, Hyderabad 5 District Collector, Hyderabad Dist., Nampally Station Road, Hyderabad 6 Mandal Revenue Officer, Trimulgherry Mandal, Trimulgherry, Secunderabad .....RESPONDENTS Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying that in the circumstances stated in the Affidavit filed herein the High Court may be pleased to issue a writ of Mandamus or any other appropriate Writ, order or orders a. Declaring that the SO 988 dt. 05/01/1988 of the 1st respondent issued under section -9A of Air Crafts Act of 1934 if void for want of opportunity to the effected persons. b. That the several notices and orders dt. 07/02/2001, 20/03/2001, 11/04/2001 and 23/04/2001 purported to be issued by 3rd and 4th Respondent are void for want of power or Jurisdiction of 3rd and 4th Respondent and for other reasons afore said. c. To restrain the Respondent from interfering with Building and Structures of the petitioner in Plot No. 2 and 3 situated at Chendulal Bowly, Secunderabad Cantonment in pursuance of the Notice dt. 07/02/2001, 20/03/2001, 11/04/2001 and 23/04/2001. d. To direct the Respondent to shift the Airport from Midest of the City to any area out side the residential locality as per International Standards in the interest of life and safety of the people in Various residential locality. Counsel for the Petitioner: MR.M.PRABHAKAR REDDY Counsel for the Respondent No.: GP FOR REVENUE The Court made the following : O R D E R : When this writ petition came up for hearing, there is no representation on behalf of the petitioner. It indicates that the petitioner is not interested in pursuing this writ petition. Accordingly, the writ petition is dismissed for non-prosecution. No costs. ______________________ B.SESHASAYANA REDDY, J. Date:12th June, 2009. cs ..... ASSISTANT REGISTRAR // TRUE COPY // SECTION OFFICER To 1. 2. 2CD copies Form-NIC-OGS/WP{VSMI}