IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) THURSDAY, THE TWENTY SIXTH DAY OF FEBRUARY TWO THOUSAND AND NINE PRESENT THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY WRIT PETITION No. 6256 of 2004 Between: Majji Appala Naidu, S/o. Late Chinnayya, R/o. Kanakaladibba, Dabagardens, Visakhapatnam. ..... PETITIONER AND 1 The Municipal Commissioner, Municipal Corporation Buildings, Visakhapatnam. 2 Kancharla Hemanth Kumar Chowdary, S/o. Dasaradharaymayya Naidu, D.No. 53-3316/2, K.R.M. Colony, Behind L.I.C. Building, Visakhapatnam. 3 Kancharla Padmaja, W/o. Hemanth Kumar Choudary, D.No. 53-33-16/2, K.R.M. Colony, Behind L.I.C. Building, Visakhapatnam. .....RESPONDENTS Counsel for the Petitioner: Counsel for Respondent No.1: SRI N.RANGA REDDY (SC FOR MPL. CORP. VSP) Counsel for Respondent Nos.2 and 3: SRI C.KODANDARAM The Court made the following : THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY WRIT PETITION No.6256 of 2004 ORDER: This writ petition is filed for the following substantive relief:- “… Hon’ble Court may be pleased to issue appropriate writ or direction, more particularly one in the nature of writ of mandamus declaring the action of the respondents in constructing scheme buildings without complying with the conditions statutory agreement and Memorandum of Understanding dated 23.11.2002 herein as highly arbitrary and illegal and consequentially direct the respondents to fulfill the conditions and evict the slum dwellers from the land of the petitioner’s land admeasuring 5,800 sq. yards situated in Sy.No.1451, Block No.41, Allipuram ward, Kanakaladibba, Visakhapatnam forthwith and pass such order or orders as this Hon’ble Court may deem fit and proper in the circumstances of the case.” At the hearing, Ms. K.Balamani, learned counsel representing Sri T.M.K.Chaitanya, learned counsel for the petitioner, submitted that the petitioner has taken return of the brief from his counsel Sri T.M.K.Chaitanya and, therefore, he has no instructions in the case. As the petitioner failed to make any alternative arrangements, the writ petition is dismissed for non-prosecution. As a sequel to dismissal of the writ petition for non-prosecution, WPMP.Nos.15928 and 8132 of 2004 filed by the petitioners for interim reliefs are also dismissed as infructuous. _______________________ C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY,J 26.02.2009 v v