IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) FRIDAY, THE THIRTIETH DAY OF JULY TWO THOUSAND AND FOUR PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE D.S.R.VARMA WRIT PETITION NO : 1572 of 1995 Between: 1. G.Kondal Rao, S/o.Sri Mallaiah R/o.Kukatpally, Hyderabad. 2. Smt.S.Usha, W/o.Sri.R.Krishnan Kutty, R/o.4-60, Kukatpally Hyderabad. … PETITIONERS AND 1. The Vice Chairman, Hyderabad Urban Development Authority (HUDA), H.No.1-8-323, Paigah Palace, Rasoolpura Secunderabad. 2. The Commissioner, Kukatpally Municipality, Kukatpally, Hyderabad (R.R.Dist). 3. The Secretary, Andhra Pradesh State Electricity Board, Engineers' Cooperative Housing Society Ltd., 'Vidyuth Soudha' Somajiguda, Hyderabad. …RESPONDENTS 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 issue a writ or direction or order under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus, declaring the approval of the Draft-lay out submitted by the 3rd respondent known as 'SHAKTI NAGAR' in the Sy.Nos.825, 826, 827 and 828 situated at Kukatpally village, R.R.Dist, without providing any approach Road to the land and houses of the petitioners as bad, illegal, arbitrary, and contrary to the Rules, Regulation and provisions of the Act and is in gross violation of principles of natural justice and consequently direct the respondents to provide an approach road to the land and houses of the petitioners which are situated adjacent to the Draft-lay out of the 3rd respondent at the end of 30' road, at the park, 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 Petitioners: MR.C.DAMODHAR REDDY(Not present) Counsel for the Respondent No. 3 Mr. VEDULA VENKATARAMANA, and the Government Pleader for Municipal Administration & Urban Development. The Court made the following: ORDER: On the last occasion, when the matter was called, the learned counsel for the petitioners was not present and there was no representation on behalf of the petitioners. Hence, the matter was directed to be listed under the caption ‘For Dismissal” today. 2. Even today, when the matter was called before lunch, neither the learned counsel for the petitioners nor the petitioners were present nor there was any representation on behalf of the petitioners. The matter was passed over. Again, when the matter is called at 2:15 pm., neither the learned counsel for the petitioners nor the petitioners are present nor there is any representation on behalf of the petitioners. 3. Accordingly, the writ petition is dismissed for default. No order as to costs. ______________ 30-07-2004 LSK/KRK ASSISTANT REGISTRAR // TRUE COPY // SECTION OFFICER To 1. The Vice Chairman, Hyderabad Urban Development Authority (HUDA), H.No.1-8-323, Paigah Palace, Rasoolpura Secunderabad. 2. The Commissioner, Kukatpally Municipality, Kukatpally, Hyderabad (R.R.Dist). 3. The Secretary, Andhra Pradesh State Electricity Board, Engineers' Cooperative Housing Society Ltd., 'Vidyuth Soudha' Somajiguda, Hyderabad. 4. Two C.Cs. to the Government Pleader for Muncipal Administration and Urban Development, High Court Buildings, Hyderabad. 5. Two C.D. copies