IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) TUESDAY, THE TWENTY SIXTH DAY OF APRIL TWO THOUSAND AND ELEVEN PRESENT THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE SANJAY KUMAR WRIT PETITION No.9105 of 2009 BETWEEN Pydi Varahalamma and two others. ... PETITIONERS AND Government of Andhra Pradesh. Rep. by its Principal Secretary, Revenue (Endowments – IV) Department, , Hyderabad and five others. ...RESPONDENTS Counsel for the Petitioners: MR. L.V.S. NAGARAJU Counsel for the Respondents: GP FOR ENDOWMENTS GP FOR REVENUE MR. E. SAMBASIVA PRATAP MR. V. VENUGOPALA RAO The Court made the following: ORDER: Sri L.V.S. Nagaraju, learned counsel for the petitioners, addressed letter dated 18.04.2011 stating that his clients instructed him to withdraw the writ petition. 2. Sri E. Sambasiva Pratap, learned counsel for respondents 5 and 6, stated that his clients filed WPMP.No.12254 of 2011 seeking to be transposed as petitioners in this writ petition and therefore his clients may be permitted to prosecute the writ petition notwithstanding the endeavour of the petitioners to withdraw the writ petition. 3. It is pertinent to note that respondents 5 and 6 came on record voluntarily by filing WPMP.No.5289 of 2011 and they now seek to be transposed as petitioners in the writ petition. However as the writ petitioners who originally approached this Court are no longer interested in prosecuting this writ petition and have instructed their counsel to withdraw the case, this Court is of the opinion that respondents 5 and 6, if they have any grievance with regard to the cause in this writ petition, would necessarily have to institute a separate and independent proceeding for redressal of their grievance and cannot seek to prosecute this writ petition, even though the original writ petitioners are no longer interested in doing so. The writ petition is accordingly dismissed along with WPMP.Nos.11923 of 2009 and 12254 of 2011. This order however shall not preclude respondents 5 and 6 from independently working out their remedies in respect of the subject cause of action in accordance with law. There shall be no order as to costs. ______________ SANJAY KUMAR, J April 25, 2011 DSK