IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) MONDAY, THE TWENTY SECOND DAY OF JUNE TWO THOUSAND AND NINE PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE B.SESHASAYANA REDDY WRIT PETITION NO : 12375 of 2005 Between: Sri Sreenivasa Abhyudaya U.P. School, Nagiriguaa Street, Pulivendula, Kadapa District Rep. by its Correspondent, K. Chalapathy. ..... PETITIONER AND 1 The Government of Andhra Pradesh, Rep. by its Secretary, Education Department, Secretariat, Hyderabad. 2 The Commissioner & Director of School Education, Saifabad, Hyderabad, Rep. by its High Level Committee. 3 The District Educational Officer, Kadapa 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 in the nature of Writ of Mandamus declaring the action of the in the nature of Writ of Mandamus declaring the action of the respondents not placing petitioner's school before High Level Committee during the year 2003 and not considering for grant of grant- in-aid as considered in case of other schools during this year and keeping pending until issue of Government Memo NO. 12080/Co.SE/A2/2004-4, dated 20-10-2004 and issuing G.O.Ms.No. 2 dated 11-10-2005 declaring that Petitioner school proposal is rejected before the High Level Committee held on 28-12-2004 and rejecting on formal ground of class wise strength/attendance is uneconomic is illegal, arbitrary, violation of right to equality and equality before the law by not treating the Petitioner's school as treated in case of other schools during the year 2003 and consequently direct the respondents to consider or place before the High Level Committee in order to consider as in case of other schools during the year 2003 dt. 20-10-2004 and G.O.Ms.No.2 dated 11-1-2005 and pass such other order or orders may deem fit and proper. Counsel for the Petitioner: MR.KOONA REDDY ANJI REDDY Counsel for the Respondents.: GP FOR EDUCATION The Court made the following : O R D E R : When this writ petition came up for hearing on 11.06.2009, 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:22nd June, 2009. cs ..... ASSISTANT REGISTRAR // TRUE COPY // SECTION OFFICER To 1. 2. 2CD copies Form-NIC-OGS/WP{VSMI}