IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) MONDAY, THE EIGHTH DAY OF JUNE TWO THOUSAND AND NINE PRESENT THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE GOPALA KRISHNA TAMADA WRIT PETITION NO : 27112 of 1999 Between: Smt. Aktharum Bee W/o Late. Syed Anwar R/o h.No.29/281, E Tekke, Nandyal , Kurnool District. ..... PETITIONER AND 1 The Superintendent Engineer (operations) A.P TRANSCO Ongole , Prakasham Dsitrict. 2 Divisional Electrical Engineer (operation) AP TRANSCO Ongole , Prakasam District. 3 Regional Provident fund Commissione A.P Barkathpura , Hyderabad. 4 Regional Provident fund Commissioner -II A.P Padmavathi Bulidings, Lakshmipuram , Guntur . .....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 a Writ, order or direction, preferably in the nature of Writ of Mandamus, declaring the action of the Respondents in not paying the family pension to the petitioner for the death to the petitioner's late husband M r . Syed Anwar , by issuing teh impugned proc. No.AP/ SRO/GNT/2359/1078AH VII-4/98/444 dt 24-9-98 is illegal , arbitrary , violative of Art.14,19,21 and 300 A of Constitution of India and consequently direct the respondents to pay the family pension to the petitioner forthwith by set asiding teh impugned order and pass such other order or further orders as this Hon'ble Court may deem fit and proper in the interest of Justice. Counsel for the Petitioner:MR.K.RATHANGA PANI REDDY Counsel for the Respondent No.: P.R.BALARAMI REDDY(SC FOR AP TRANSCO) The Court made the following : THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE GOPALA KRISHNA TAMADA WRIT PETITION NO : 27112 of 1999 On 04.06.2009 when the matter was taken up for hearing, the learned counsel for the petitioner was absent. Hence the matter was directed to be listed on 05.06.2009 under the caption for dismissal and again the matter was adjourned to today. Even today also when the matter is taken up for hearing, the learned counsel for the petitioner is absent and there is no representation on his behalf. Hence the Writ Petition is dismissed for non prosecution. No order as to costs. ---------------- 08.06.2009 kvsn