IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) MONDAY, THE EIGHTEENTH DAY OF AUGUST TWO THOUSAND AND EIGHT PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE RAMESH RANGANATHAN WRIT PETITION NO : 449 of 1999 Between: A. Sudhakar S/o A. Sambaiah R/o 18/132, Nehru Road, Kurnool. ..... PETITIONER AND 1 Commissioner, Municipal Corporation Kurnool 2 Town Planning Officer, Municipal Corporation Kurnool .....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 a Writ, order or direction more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus declaring the Endorsement B.R.S.No.472/98/G3 dt.5-12-19998 and also the consequential Impugned Notice B.R.S.No.472/98/G3 dated 11-1-1999 issued by the respondent whereunder directing the petitioner to pay the balance amount of Rs.4,14,817/- within 3 days and also threatening to demolish the violated portion of the Petitioner's building in D.No.18/131, 1 to 7, 18/132A, A1 and 18/132 B1 and B2 situated at Nehur Road, Kurnool, as illegal, arbitrary, and contrary to the Provisions of G.O.Ms 419 M.A date 30-7-1998 G.O.Ms.No.423 dt.31-7-1998 and also the M.C.H Act. 1955 and consequently direct the respondents to receive the amount of Rs.46,485/- after deducting the amount of Rs.10,000/- which was already received and regularise the deviations/violated portions of the Petitioner's building which was already received and regularise the deviations/ violated portions of the Petitioner's building, and pass such other order or orders as this Hon'ble Court may deem fit and proper in the circumstances of the case. Counsel for the Petitioner:MR.K.V.CHALAPATHI RAO Counsel for the Respondent No.: GP FOR MUNCIPAL ADMN. & URBAN DEV. The Court made the following : THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE RAMESH RANGANATHAN WRIT PETITION NO. 449 OF 1999 ORDER: Sri S.S.V.Ravi, Learned Counsel appearing on behalf of Sri K.V.Chalapathi Rao, Learned Counsel for the petitioner, would submit that despite repeated letters being addressed, they have not received any reply from the petitioner and that they have no instructions in the matter. The writ petition is dismissed for non-prosecution. No costs. ____________ 18-8-2008 asp