IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) WEDNESDAY, THE SEVENTEENTH DAY OF JUNE TWO THOUSAND AND NINE PRESENT THE HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE and THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE RAMESH RANGANATHAN WRIT PETITION NO : 30410 of 1998 Between: 1 D.Radha Krishna , S/o. Venkayya, R/o. Ashok Nagar, Eluru, W.G.Dist. 2 M.Jaganmohan Rao, S/o. Venkata Narayana, R/o. Ashok Nagar, Eluru, W.G.Dist. 3 G.Nageswara Rao, S/o. Surayya, R/o. Ashok Nagar, Eluru, W.G.Dist. 4 Shaik Baji, S/o. Yokob Khan, R/o. Ashok Nagar, Eluru, W.G.District. ..... PETITIONER(S) AND 1 The Eluru Municipality, rep.by it's Commissioner , Eluru , W.G.District. 2 The Rotary Club of Eluru , rep.by it's President, District 3020, Narni Veeresalingam Street, Gandhi Nagar, Eluru-2. .....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 any Writ order or direction more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus declaring the in- action of the respondent No.1 ie., not taking any action for removal of the unauthorised, illegal and impermissable pucca and permanent constructions being raised by the 2nd respondent in Ashok Nagar Park, Eluru in R.S.No.22 in 4th ward in an extent of Ac.0.24 cents situated at Ganganamma Temple, as illegal, arbitrary, capricious, unjust and consequently to direct the 1st respondent to take appropriate action for removal of that illegal and unauthorised constructions in the said site in accordance with law Counsel for the Petitioner: SMT.N.(P).ANJANA DEVI, SATYANARAYANA (not present) Counsel for Respondent No.1: MR.E.SAMBASIVA PRATAP Counsel for Respondent No.2: Sri A. Ramalingeswara Rao The Court made the following : ORAL ORDER: (Per Sri Anil R. Dave, CJ) When this petition was notified for final hearing on 12-06-2009, the learned advocate for the petitioners was absent and, therefore, in the interest of justice, the hearing was adjourned to 17-06- 2009 i.e., today. 2. Even today, when the matter was called out, the learned advocate for the petitioners was absent. 3. In the circumstances, the petition is dismissed for default. ANIL R. DAVE, CJ RAMESH RANGANATHAN, J 17th June, 2009 ks