IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) WEDNESDAY, THE THIRD DAY OF JUNE TWO THOUSAND AND NINE PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE R.SUBHASH REDDY WRIT PETITION NO : 10568 of 2002 Between: Sri Sunketa Ganga Reddy S/o Late Raja Reddy R/o H.No. 5-11-81/14, Pragathinagar, Nizamabad, Nizamabad District. ..... PETITIONER AND 1 The Mandal Revenue Officer, Nizamabad Mandal, Nizamabad District. 2 The District Collector, Nizamabad, Nizamabad District. 3 The Commissioner, Nizamabad Municipality, Nizamabad, Nizamabad District. 4 The Principal Secretary, Revenue Department, Secretariat, Hyderabad. ....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, Order or Direction more particularly one in the nature of Writ of MANDAMUS declaring the action of the Respondents 1, 2 & 3 in interfering with the repairs of Compound Wall around the Property bearing MPL No. 5-11-1036 and 5-11-1036/A situated at Yellammagutta, Nizamabad Mandal, admeasuring 7.992 Guntas without any authority or initiation of any Proceedings as bad in law and in violation of Principles of Natural Justice and consequently Allow the petitioner to carry out repairs to the Compound Wall which was constructed in pursuance of sanction vide proceedings of 3rd Respondent in Proc. No. B.A.D2/141/88 dt. 21-9-1988 in the interest of justice. Counsel for the Petitioner: MR.B.SUDHAKAR REDDY & NEERAJA REDDY Counsel for the Respondents: GP FOR MUNCIPAL ADMN. & URBAN DEV. The Court made the following : THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE R. SUBHASH REDDY Writ Petition No. 10568 of 2002 Order: This writ petition was listed for hearing on 02.06.2009. As there was no representation on behalf of the petitioner on 02.06.2009, it is posted today under the caption “for dismissal”. Although the matter is listed under the caption “for dismissal”, even today also there is no representation on behalf of the petitioner. Hence, the writ petition is dismissed for non-prosecution. No order as to costs. _____________________ R. SUBHASH REDDY, J. Date: 03.06.2009 Nsr