IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) THURSDAY, THE FOURTH DAY OF FEBRUARY TWO THOUSAND AND PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE RAMESH RANGANATHAN WRIT PETITION NO : 1645 of 1999 Between: 1 Ajmeera Pikili, W/o. Ramya, R/o. Pulimadugu Village, Mandamarri Mandal, Adilabad District. 2 Ajmeera Badli, W/o. Wasram, R/o. Pulimadugu Village, Mandamarri Mandal, Adilabad District. 3 Banoth Rajavva, W/o. Ganga, R/o. Pulimadugu Village, Mandamarri Mandal, Adilabad District. 4 Banoth Kamala, W/o. Shankar, R/o. Pulimadugu Village, Mandamarri Mandal, Adilabad District. 5 Bukya Neeli, W/o. Shankar, R/o. Pulimadugu Village, Mandamarri Mandal, Adilabad District. 6 Ajmeera Thirupathi, S/o. Wasram, R/o. Pulimadugu Village, Mandamarri Mandal, Adilabad District. 7 Ajmeera Gouri, D/o. Wasram, R 7 rep.by their Guardian Banoth Ganga,S/o. Desia, R/o. Thimmapur, Luxettipet, Adilabad District. 8 Ajmeera Gattu, S/o. Wasram, P8 rep.by their Guardian Banoth Ganga,S/o. Desia, R/o. Thimmapur, Luxettipet, Adilabad District. ..... PETITIONER(S) AND 1 The Regional Commissioner, Coal Mines Provident Fund, P & T Colony, Kothapet, Hyderabad. 2 The Colliery Manager, RK-4 Incline, Singareni Collieries Company Ltd., Ramakrishnapur, Adilabad District. .....RESPONDENT(S) Petition under Article 226 of the constitution of India praying that in the circumstances stated in the Affidavit filed herein the High Court will be pleased to to issue an order or direction more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus declaring the action of the first respondent in issuing letter No. CPF/HYD/40/ RKP/Refund/3194 dated 2-9-98 is highly arbitrary bad and illegal and consequently direct the respondents to pay Service benefits including provident Fund amount to the Petitioners and pass Counsel for the Petitioner:MR.P.PRABHAKAR REDDY Counsel for the Respondent No.: MR.V.RAGHUNANDAN REDDY The Court made the following : THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE RAMESH RANGANATHAN WRIT PETITION NO. 1645 OF 1999 ORDER: Since none appeared for the petitioners on 26.3.2008, the writ petition was directed to be posted “for dismissal”. Today though the writ petition is listed under the caption ‘for dismissal’, neither is the counsel for the petitioners present nor is there any representation on his behalf. The writ petition is dismissed for non-prosecution. No order as costs. ___________ 19-3-2008 asp