IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) TUESDAY, THE TWENTIETH DAY OF JANUARY TWO THOUSAND AND NINE PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE N.V. RAMANA WRIT PETITION NO : 11207 of 2006 Between: 1 Smt. Ramini Sadguna W/o. Ramulua R/o. 6-3-252/B/7/4&5/A, Shanthi Soudha Apartments, Erramanzil Colony, Hyderabad. 2 Smt. T. Uma Rani W/o. P. Vidyasagar R/o. 6-3-252/B/7/6&7, Shanthi Soudha Apartments, Erramanzil Colony, Hyderabad. 3 Smt. Dr. Kamatham Shanti Naidu W/o. LateKamatham Suwacha Naidu, R/o. 6-3-252/B/407, Shanthi Soudha Apartments, Erramanzil Colony, Hyderabad. 4 Smt. P. Seshamma W/o. Late P. Raja Reddy R/o. 6-3-252/B/5, Erramanzil Colony, Hyderabad. ..... PETITIONER(S) AND 1 The Municipal Coporation of Hyderabad,Rep . by its Commissioner, Hyderabad. 2 The Assistant City Planner, Municipal Corporation of Hyderabad, Town Planning Section, Circle No.5. 3 State of Andhra Pradesh,. Rep. by its Secretary, Municipal Administration & Hyderabad. .....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 issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of Mandamus or other wise declaring the proceedings No. ACP/C5/TPS/2006 dt. 11-5-2006 issued by the 2nd respondent, as arbitrary, illegal and malafide, violating Articles 14 and 21 of the Constitution of India and set aside the same and issue consequential directions, restraining the Respondents from removing the Structure at Premises Nos. 6-3-252/B/4 to 7 i.e, Shanti Soudha Apartments, situated at Erranmanzil Colony, Hyderabad, and pass such other order or orders as it deems fit and proper. Counsel for the Petitioner: Not present Counsel for Respondent Nos.1 and 2: SMT.KALPANA EKBOTE Counsel for Respondent No.3: Government Pleader for Municipal Administration and Rural Development The Court made the following : ORDER: On 19-01-2009, none appeared for the petitioners. Therefore, the matter was directed to be listed today under the caption “for dismissal”. Even today, none appears for the petitioners. Hence, the writ petition is dismissed for default. N.V. RAMANA, J 20-01-2009 msv