IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) TUESDAY, THE ELEVENTH DAY OF MARCH TWO THOUSAND AND EIGHT PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE P.V.SANJAY KUMAR WRIT PETITION NO : 4382 of 2001 Between: 1 Mrs.Nusrath Sajjida, W/o. Mohd. Osman Amoodi, R/o.16-1-18/54, Sayeedabad, Hyderabad. 2 Lubna Batool, D/o.M.A. Rasheeduddin, R/o.A.C.Guards, Hyderabad. 3 Dr. M. Abdul Bari, S/o.Mohd. Abdul Hadi, R/o.16-1-24/B/A/6, Farah Colony, Sayeedabad, Hyderabad. 4 Miss Amina Saba, D/o.M.A. Rasheed Khan, R/o.A.C.Guards, Hyderabad-4. 5 Ayesha Hina, D/o.M.A. Rasheed Khan, R/o.A.C.Guards, Hyderabad. ..... PETITIONERS AND 1 Mandal Revenue Officer, Shaikpet, Vijayanagar Colony, Hyderabad, Ranga Reddy District. 2 Administrative Offier, Hyderabad Urban Development Authority (HUDA) Paigha Begumpet, 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, Order or Direction more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus declaring the action of the Respondents dt.10-3-2001 threatening to demolish the compound walls of the petitioners bearing Municipal Nos. 9-4-2/1/9, 9-4-2/1/3, 9-4-2/1/1, 9-4- 2/1/7 and 9-4-2/1/8 respectively, situated at Hakeempet, Towlichowki, Hyderabad, as illegal void without the authority of law, violative of the Fundamental rights guaranteed by the Constitution of India, null and void and consequently direct the respondents not to demolish the compound walls of the Petitioners premises as referred above, 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.MOHD.ZIA-UL- HAQ Counsel for the Respondent No.: GP FOR REVENUE The Court made the following : ORDER: This Writ Petition was posted for hearing before this Court on 21-10-2008, 29-10-2008 and 30-10-2008. There was no representation on behalf of the petitioners on any of the said dates. Even prior thereto, the matter had been adjourned at the request of the learned counsel appearing for the respondents and there was no representation for the petitioners. 2. The continued lack of representation on behalf of the petitioners clearly indicates that they are not interested in pursuing the Writ Petition. 3. The Writ Petition is accordingly dismissed for non-prosecution. There shall be no order as to costs. ___________________________ Justice P.V.SANJAY KUMAR Dated 3rd November, 2008. Dvs HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE P.V.SANJAY KUMAR WRIT PETITION No.4382 OF 2001 Dated 3rd November, 2008