IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) MONDAY, THE TWENTY NINTH DAY OF JUNE TWO THOUSAND AND NINE PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE V.ESWARAIAH and THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE P.SWAROOP REDDY WRIT PETITION No.3314 of 1998 Between: A. Vee-ra Ba-bu S/o. Satyanarayana R/o. H.No. 13-2-21, Maulana Azad Street, Tadepalligudem, West Godavari District. ..... PETITIONER AND 1 The Central Bureau of Investigation Rep. by its Regional Director, Kachiguda, Hyderabad. 2 The Director of Vigilance and Enforcement, Burgula Ramakrishna Bhavan, Saifabad, Hyderabad. 3 The Commissioner, Commercial Taxes, Enforcement Wing, Hyderabad. Hyderabad. .....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 may be pleased to issue a Writ, order or direction more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus and direct the 1st Respondent to conduct investigation into the evasion of commercial tax on the basis of the search and ceasure conducted on 16-9-93 by the Asst. Commissioner, Commercial Tax, at Tadepalligudem, Eluru, Jangareddygudem and Devarapalli simultaneously. On the information given by the writ petitioner and as well as the search and ceasure conducted by the 2nd Respondent between 19-9-96 and 23-9-96 in this regard, and take all necessary steps including launching prosecution against the culprits and pass such other order or further orders in the interest of justice. Counsel for the Petitioner:MR.N.JANARDHAN REDDY Counsel for the Respondent No.: MR.GOURI SHANKAR SANGHI The Court made the following : THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE V.ESWARAIAH and THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE P.SWAROOP REDDY WRIT PETITION No.3314 of 1998 ORDER: (per the Hon’ble Sri Justice V. Eswaraiah) When the matter was taken up for hearing on 26-06-2009, none appeared for the petitioner and as such, the matter was directed to be posted under the caption “for dismissal”. Today also, when the matter is taken up for hearing, neither the learned counsel for the petitioner is present nor is there any representation on his behalf. Accordingly, the writ petition is dismissed for default. There shall be no order as to costs. ________________ V.ESWARAIAH, J _____________________ P.SWAROOP REDDY, J Date : 26-06-2009 Prv