IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) FRIDAY, THE NINETEENTH DAY OF JUNE TWO THOUSAND AND NINE PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE B.SESHASAYANA REDDY WRIT PETITION NO : 14852 of 2002 Between: Goldstone Engineering Limited 9-1-83 and 84, Amrchand Sharma Complex, S.D.Road, Secunderabad. ..... PETITIONER AND 1 Principal Secretary , Municipal Administration, Secretariat, Hyderabad. 2 Commissioner Serilingampally Municipality, Serilingampally , R.R.District. 3 V.Laxminarayana S/o Mallaiah R/o Sy.No.80, Hafeezpet, R.R.District. 4 V.Srinivas, S/o Late Mallaiah R/o Sy.No.80, Hafeezpet, R.R.District. 5 G.Srisailam S/o Anjaiah R/o Sy.No.80, Hafeezpet, R.R.District. 6 G.Sarojini W/o Maraiah R/o Sy.No.80, Hafeezpet, R.R.District. 7 V.Laxmi W/o Laxminarayana R/o Sy.No.80, Hafeezpet, R.R.District. 8 V.Lalitha W/o Srinivas R/o Sy.No.80, Hafeezpet, R.R.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 may be pleased to issue an appropriate Writ, order or direction more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus directing the 2nd respondent to demolish illegal construction made on the petitioners land with respect to ad measuring Ac.117.00 G from out of a total extent of Ac.484.31 G in Sy.No.80 of Hafeezpet Village, Serilingampally Mandal, R.R.District adn bounded on North Railway track: South: East Sy.No.80/Part:West part of Sy.No.80. Counsel for the Petitioner: MR.K.R.RAMAN Counsel for the Respondent No1&2.: MR.V.VISWANATHAM Counsel for the Respondent Nos.3 to 8:MR.B.RAVINDER REDDY The Court made the following : O R D E R : When this writ petition came up for hearing on 10.06.2009, there was no representation on behalf of the petitioner and therefore, it was directed to be listed next week under the caption ‘for dismissal’. Despite the matter being listed under the caption ‘for dismissal’ on this day, 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:19th June, 2009. cs ..... ASSISTANT REGISTRAR // TRUE COPY // SECTION OFFICER To 1. 2. 2CD copies Form-NIC-OGS/WP{VSMI}