IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) TUESDAY, THE TWELFTH DAY OF AUGUST TWO THOUSAND AND EIGHT PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE V.ESWARAIAH WRIT PETITION No: 409 of 2001 BETWEEN: The Managing Committee of National Senior Basic School, Rep. by its Correspondent A. Mallikarjuna Rao, Rajahmundry. ... PETITIONER AND 1 The State Of Andhra Pradesh, Rep. by its Secretary, Education Department, Secretariat Buildings, Hyderabad. 2 The Director of School Education, Govt. of Andhra Pradesh, Hyderabad. 3 The District Educational Officer, East Godavari District, Kakinada. 4 The Assistant Commissioner, Endowments Department, Rajahmundry, E.G. dist., 5 The Executive Officer cum Secretary and Correspondent of National Senior Basic School, Rajahmundry, East Godavari 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 more particularly in the nature of a Writ of Mandamus, declaring the proceedings of the 2nd respondent in his Rc.No. 464/B2--1/93 dated 22.7.2000 as being arbitrary, illegal and violative of Art. 14 of Constitution of India and the orders passed by this Hon'ble High Court and issue consequential directions to the Respondents not to interfere with the administration of the National Senior Basic School, Rajahmundry and issue such other Writ Order or directions as deemed fit and proper in the circumstances of the case. Counsel for the Petitioner: MRS.VIJAYA DUGGINENI Counsel for the Respondents: MR.METTACHENDRA SEKHAR RAO GP FOR EDUCATION The Court made the following: ORDER: The matter relates to the approval and appointment of one Mr. A. Mallikarjuna Rao as correspondent of the petitioner-school as per the orders of the High Court dated 12.09.1995 in WPMP.No.25131 of 1995 in WP.No.20480 of 1995. Though interim suspension was granted initially, the same was vacated by order dated 10.09.2001. 2. When the matter was taken up for hearing on 19.04.2008, as none appeared, it was directed to be listed after summer vacation, 2008. Again when the matter was taken up for hearing on 05.08.2008, as none appeared, it was directed to be listed under the caption ‘For Dismissal’. Though the matter has been listed under caption ‘For Dismissal’ and taken up for hearing today, neither the petitioner appear nor there is any representation on its behalf. The writ petition is accordingly dismissed for default. There shall be no order as to costs. ______________ V. ESWARAIAH, J August 12, 2008 DSK