IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) WEDNESDAY, THE EIGHTEENTH DAY OF JUNE TWO THOUSAND AND EIGHT PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE V.ESWARAIAH WRIT PETITION No: 7326 of 2001 BETWEEN: The Kakatiya Co-operative Housing Society Ltd., Rep by its President Smt. G. Archana W/o. G. Sudhakar Reddy, R/o. 8-2- 268/1/b/18, Road No.3, Banjara Hills, Hyderabad. ... PETITIONER AND 1 The commissioner of Police, Hyderabad. 2 The Deputy Commissioner of Police, North Zone, Secunderabad. 3 The Assistant Commissioner of Police, Ramgopalpet Division, Secunderabad. 4 The station House Officer, Ramgopalpet Police Station, Secunderabad. 5 M. Madhava Reddy S/o. Narasimha Reddy, R/o. 16-2-741/D/40, Asmangadh, T.V. Tower, Malakpet, 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 any appropriate Writ order or direction preferably a Writ in the nature of Mandamus declaring the in action of the Respondent No.1 to 4 from institution any action against Mr. Madhava Reddy and other in spite of there being complaints about a cognizable offence, as illegal, arbitrary and violative of Article 14 300-a of the constitution of India, and consequently direct the Respondent to take action as per law on the complaints received by them from the petitioner Society and render protection to the lay out of the petitioner Society situated in Sy.No.194/10, Admeasuring 7.28 Acres situated at Patigadda, Secunderabad, and pass such other order or orders. Counsel for the Petitioner: MR.N.SATCHIDANAND Counsel for the Respondents 1 to 4: GP FOR HOME The Court made the following: ORDER: A perusal of the docket order goes to show that when the matter was taken up for hearing on 02.04.2002, the learned counsel for the petitioner was not present and again when it was listed on 23.04.2008, the matter was adjourned. When the matter was again taken up for hearing on 11.06.2008, as none appeared, it was directed to be listed under the caption ‘For Dismissal’. Today also, when the matter is posted under the caption for dismissal neither the petitioner appeared nor there is any representation on its behalf. The writ petition is accordingly dismissed for non-prosecution. There shall be no order as to costs. ______________ V. ESWARAIAH, J June 18, 2008 DSK