IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) FRIDAY, THE TWENTY NINETH DAY OF FEBRUARY TWO THOUSAND AND EIGHT PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE RAMESH RANGANATHAN WRIT PETITION NO : 11143 of 1999 Between: 1 S.Papiti Rao, S/o Late Balanna, Vanasamarakshana Samithi, Gochari-Guda, Paderu, Visakhapatnam. 2 S.Krishnaveni, W/o Papiti Rao, Vanasamarakshana Samithi, Gochari-Guda, Paderu, Visakhapatnam District. 3 S. Bonju Babu S/o Late Balanna Vanasamarakshana Samithi, Gochari-Guda, Paderu, Visakhapatnam District. 4 S. Bonju Babu S/o Late Somanna Vanasamarakshana Samithi, Gochari-Guda, Paderu, Visakhapatnam District. 5 S. Rama Rao S/o Bojjaiah Vanasamarakshana Samithi, Gochari-Guda, Paderu, Visakhapatnam District. 6 P. Bonju Babu S/o Late Somanna Vanasamarakshana Samithi, Gochari-Guda, Paderu, Visakhapatnam District. 7 S. Lingamma W/o Rama Rao Vanasamarakshana Samithi, Gochari-Guda, Paderu, Visakhapatnam District. 8 S.T.G. Venkata Sriram S/o Gopalachary Vanasamarakshana Samithi, Gochari-Guda, Paderu, Visakhapatnam District. ..... PETITIONER(S) AND 1 The District Forest Officer, Soil Conservation Division, Govt of A.P. Paderu, Visakhapatnam- 531024. 2 Sri Talupulamma Thalli Vanasamarkshana Samithi, Rep By its Chair- Person, Gochari Gida, Paderu, Visakhapatnam. .....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 to issue an appropriate Writ, order or direction more particularly one in the Nature of a Writ of Mandamus and direct the respondents to regularise the services of petitioners with all consquential service benefits and pass such order or orders as my deemed fit and proper in the circumstances of the case. Counsel for the Petitioner:MR.P.KISHORE RAO Counsel for the Respondent No.1: GP FOR FORESTS The Court made the following Order: Since none appeared for the petitioners on 28-02-2008, the matter was directed to be listed under the caption ‘for dismissal’. Today, though the matter is listed under the caption ‘for dismissal’, neither the counsel for the petitioners is present nor is there any representation on his behalf. Hence the writ petition is dismissed for non-prosecution. No costs. ____________ 29-02-2008 usd