IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) FRIDAY, THE FIFTH DAY OF JUNE TWO THOUSAND AND NINE PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY WRIT PETITION NO : 1744 of 2009 Between: Bonga Jaya, S/o. B. Chennaswamayya, R/o. Pallevada Village, Kaikaluru Mandal, ][ Krishna District. ..... PETITIONER AND 1 A.P. State Housing Corporation Limited, Himayathnagr, Hyderabad, Rep.by its Vice Chairman & Managing Director. 2 The District Collector, Krishna District, Machilipatnam. 3 The District Vigilance & Enforcement Officer, Vijaywada, Krishna District. 4 The District Manager, A.P. State Housing Corporation Limited, Machilipatnam, Krishna District. 5 Sri Y. Raja Babu @ Y. Raju Ramachander, MLA, Kaikaluru Constituency, R/o. Konduru, Kalidindi Mandal, Krishna District. .....RESPONDENTS Counsel for the Petitioner: MR.K.G.K.PRASAD Counsel for Respondent Nos.1 and 4: MR.K.MOHAN RAMI REDDY Counsel for Respondent No.2: G.P.FOR REVENUE Counsel for Respondent No.3: ----- Counsel for Respondent No.5: K.ANANDA RAO The Court made the following : ORDER: This Writ Petition is filed for the following substantive relief: “to issue a Writ, Order or Direction more in the nature of a Writ of Mandamus declaring the action of the Respondents in allotting house sites and granting loans for construction of houses to several ineligible candidates and rejecting the case of the petitioner for allotment of a house site for construction of house under Indiramma Housing Scheme as arbitrary, illegal, discriminatory, offending Art. 14 of the Constitution of India consequently, direct the Respondents to allot a house site with loan for construction of a house in Pallevada Village, Kaikaluru Mandal, Krishna District.” At the hearing, Sri K.G.K.Prasad, learned Counsel for the petitioner, sought for leave of the Court to withdraw the Writ Petition with liberty to file a fresh Writ Petition, in the event the petitioner does not succeed in getting a house under Indiramma Housing Scheme allotted. The request of the learned Counsel is accepted and the Writ Petition is dismissed as withdrawn with liberty in terms of the prayer made. As a sequel to dismissal of the Writ Petition, WPMP.Nos.2200 and 2201 of 2009 filed by the petitioner for interim relief are disposed of as infructuous. ___________________________ (C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY, J) 5th June, 2008 LUR