IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) WEDNESDAY, THE ELEVENTH DAY OF FEBRUARY TWO THOUSAND AND NINE PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE V.ESWARAIAH AND THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE VILAS V. AFZULPURKAR WRIT PETITION No: 20371 of 1998 BETWEEN: M/s. Srinivasa Rice & Oil Mill, Rep. by its Partner G.Srinivasulu Gupta, S/o G.Viswanatham, R/o Jadcherla, M8Nagar Dist. Jadcherla, Mahaboobnagar District. ... PETITIONER AND 1 The State of Andhra Pradesh Rep. by its Prl. Secretary to Government, Revenue Department, Secretariat, Hyderabad. 2 The Commissioner of Commercial Taxes, Andhra Pradesh, Hyderabad. 3 The Chairman, A.P. Rural Development Board, Andhra Pradesh, Hyderabad. 4 The Deputy Commissioner of Commercial Taxes, Nalgonda, Nalgonda District. 5 The Commercial Tax Officer, Jadcherla, Mahaboobnagar 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 order or direction, more in the nature of writ of Mandamus, declaring the provisions of the A.P. Rural Development Act, 1996 (Act No.11 of 1996) as illegal arbitrary, unjust and unconstitutional and the power to impose the case on the dealers or millers to pay the cess on purchase of the paddy as per Section 7 of the Act is highly arbitrary, unreasonable and violative of articles 14, 16 19 (1) (g) and 21 of the Constitution of India and consequently declare the same as null and void and nonest in the eye of law; and pass such other order or orders. Counsel for the Petitioner: MR.GUNTHA.SURESH Counsel for the Respondents: GP FOR REVENUE The Court made the following: ORDER: (per Hon’ble Sri Justice V. Eswaraiah) When the matter was taken up for hearing on 05.02.2009, as none appeared, it was directed to be listed under the caption ‘For Dismissal’ on 09.02.2009. On 09.02.2009, when the matter being listed under the caption ‘For Dismissal’ was taken up for hearing, as none appeared, it was adjourned to 11.02.2009. Even today, when the matter is taken up for hearing, neither the petitioner appears nor there is any representation on his behalf. The writ petition is accordingly dismissed for default of the petitioner. There shall be no order as to costs. ______________ V. ESWARAIAH, J _____________________ VILAS V. AFZULPURKAR, J February 11, 2009 DSK