IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) TUESDAY, THE SEVENTEENTH DAY OF FEBRUARY TWO THOUSAND AND NINE PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE GHULAM MOHAMMED and THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE SANJAY KUMAR WRIT PETITION NO : 696 of 2000 Between: K.Edward S/o.K.Vandanam Behind Leela Poultry Vijayawada, Krishna District ..... PETITIONER AND 1 The Divisional Electrical Engineer Traction Rolling Stock South Central Railway Vijayawada 2 The Assistant Electrical Engineer Traction Rolling Shed South Central Railway Vijayawada .....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 writ, order or direction more particularly one in the nature of writ of mandamus declaring the action of the 2nd respondent in passing removal order vide Memorandum No.B/P5/II/TRS/15, Dt.07/02/1995 and confirmation orders passed in proceedings B/P.57/II/95/TRS/5, Dt.25/07/1995 of the first respondent which was communicated through proceedings No.B/ELS/TRS/5 CL.IV/Vol.II, Dt.28/08/1995 of the Shop Superintendent, Vijayawada as illegal, arbitrary and violative of Article 14, 16 and 311 of the Constitution of India and consequently direct the respondents to reinstate the petitioner into service wtih all attended benefits forthwith or alternatively grant compassionate allowance to the petitioenr from the date of removal order and pass such other order. Counsel for the Petitioner:MR.J.M.NAIDU Counsel for the Respondent No.: MR.GOURI SHANKAR SANGHI The Court made the following : THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE GHULAM MOHAMMED AND THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE SANJAY KUMAR WRIT PETITION NO.696 OF 2000 ORDER: (Per GM,J) Since there was no representation on behalf of the petitioner on 16.02.2009, the matter was directed to be listed today under the caption “for dismissal”. Today, when the matter is called in the morning, a request is made to pass over the matter. Again in the afternoon when the matter is called, none appears for the petitioner nor is there any representation made on his behalf. Hence, the writ petition is dismissed for non-prosecution. No costs. __________________________ GHULAM MOHAMMED, J. ____________________ SANJAY KUMAR, J. 17th February, 2009. VGSR