IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) TUESDAY, THE FOURTEENTH DAY OF JULY TWO THOUSAND AND NINE PRESENT THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE V.ESWARAIAH and THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE P.SWAROOP REDDY WRIT PETITION NO : 8728 of 2000 Between: 1 N.Chandra Shekar, S/o.Dr.Laxmikantha Sastri. 3-65 in Survey No.18/3, Hubsiguda, Uppal, Hyderabad. 2 Smt. M.Savitramma, W/o. Dr.Laxmikantha Sastri. 3-65 in Survey No.18/3, Hubsiguda, Uppal Kalan Municipality, Hyderabad. ..... PETITIONER(S) AND 1 The Secretary to Government, Health and Municipal Administration, Government of Andhra Pradesh, Secretariat, Hyderabad. 2 The Commissioner & Director of Municipal Administration, Government of Andhra Pradesh, Hyderabad. 3 The Commissioner, Uppal Municipality, Uppal Kalan, R.R.District. .....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 issue Writ of CERTIORARI or any other appropriate Writ or direction and call for the records in and connected with the impugned proceedings U.C.R.No.13/I/99-2000 dated 10/04/2000 and P.O.U.C.R.No.13/I/99-2000 dated:23/03/2000 as the same was issued without following the section 217 of A.P.Municipalities Act 1965 and consequently declare the action of Respondent No.3 is illegal and arbitrary and contrary to the instructions and orders issued by the Respondent Nos.1 & 2 from time to time and also award Rs. 10 lakhs compensation which may be recovered from 3rd respondent or pass any other order or orders deem fit and proper in the circumstances of the case in the interest of the justice. Counsel for the Petitioner:MR.T.K.SRIDHAR Counsel for the Respondent No.: GP FOR MUNCIPAL ADMN. & URBAN DEV. The Court made the following : ORDER: (Sri Justice V.Eswaraiah) When the matter has been taken up for hearing on 7.7.2009, neither the petitioners nor their counsel were present and there was no representation on their behalf. Therefore, the matter was directed to be posted on 14.7.2009 under the caption ‘For Dismissal’. Even today also, though the matter is listed under the caption ‘For Dismissal’ neither the petitioners nor their counsel are present and there is no representation on their behalf. In the circumstances, the writ petition is dismissed for default. No order as to costs. The interim order granted earlier shall stand vacated. ________________ V.ESWARAIAH, J. _________________ P.SWAROOP REDDY, J. 14.7.2009 kpr