THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE C.V. NAGARJUNA REDDY WRIT PETITION No.11978 of 2002 Date: 30.01.2008 Between: Yaturi Construction Limited, rep., by its Director, Banjara Hills, Hyderabad. … Petitioner AND The District Forest Officer, Kurnool Division, Kurnool & another. … Respondents Counsel for the petitioner : None THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE C.V. NAGARJUNA REDDY WRIT PETITION. No.11978 of 2002 ORDER:- This writ petition is filed for a writ of mandamus to declare the action of the respondents in interfering with the stone crushing activity and seizing the vehicle bearing registration No.AP 9 U 1665 (tipper) of the petitioner, as illegal and arbitrary. The petitioner also sought for a consequential direction to respondent No.1 not to interfere with his stone crushing activity. The averments contained in the affidavit filed in support of the writ petition show that the petitioner is one of the contractors entrusted with the work of execution of canal work of Srisailam from KM 30 to KM 80 and in course of the execution of the said work, he was excavating rubble and using the surrounding rocks in the vicinity for construction of cement concrete lining of the canal. On the ground that the said work was being interfered by respondent No.1, this writ petition is filed. At the hearing, there is no representation for the petitioner. A perusal of the proceeding sheet of the case shows that on 04.07.2002 this Court granted interim direction to respondent No.1 not to interfere with the activities of the petitioner and also to release the seized tipper. The said order was subsequently modified on two occasions. In the order passed on 09.04.2003, this Court, while taking note of the statement of the learned Government Pleader for Forest that the vehicle of the petitioner is lying with the Forest Department and that he should approach the authorized officer for release of the same, an observation was made that if the petitioner approaches the authorized officer, he shall pass necessary orders for release of the vehicle on usual terms which shall be subject to the result of the main writ petition. The fact that no one appeared for the petitioner shows that it is not interested in prosecuting its case. Moreover, the contract work, being of limited tenure, may in all probability has been executed by now. For the abovementioned reasons, I am of the view that no further orders are required to be passed in the writ petition. The writ petition is accordingly disposed of. As a sequel to disposal of the writ petition, WPMP.No.2194 of 2002 and WVMP.No.14788 of 2002 are disposed of as infructuous. C.V. NAGARJUNA REDDY, J Date: 30.01.2008 ES