IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) WEDNESDAY, THE TENTH DAY OF JUNE TWO THOUSAND AND NINE PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE R.SUBHASH REDDY WRIT PETITION NO : 2204 of 2003 Between: Sri J. Mudhumurthy, s/o. Lingaiah, R/o.1-10-122/8/5, Ashok Nagar, Hyderabad. .... PETITIONER AND 1 The Andhra Pradesh State Civil Supplies Corporation Ltd., Rep.by its Vice-Chairman & Managing Director, Hyderabad. 2 The District Collector, Nalgonda, Nalgonda District. 3 The Mandal Revenue Officer, Nalgonda, Nalgonda District. 4 The District Manager, Andhra Pradesh State Civil Supplies Corporation Ltd., Nalgonda, Nalgonda District. ....RESPONDENTS 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 a Writ, Order or direction more particularly one in the nature of `WRIT OF MANDAMUS,' declaring the action of the 1st respondents in issuing the Proceedings in Lr.No.PDS/Movt.FG.5(67)/98-99, dt.26-09-2000, requesting the 2nd respondent to initiate Revenue Recovery Act for recovery of Rs.10,03,928=65 PS, and consequently 2nd respondent initiating Revenue Recovery there by 3rd Respondent attaching the house of the petitioner and propose to put for auction vide Lr.No.G/14907, 28-12- 2002 as illegal, arbitrary, and violative of the provisions of the Revenue Recovery Act and also violation of Art.14, 21 & 300-A of the Constitution of India and consequently set aside the proceedings in Lr. No. PDS/Movt.FG. 5(67)/98-99, dt.26-09-2000, of 1st respondent and also its consequential proceedings in Lr.No.G/14907, 28-12-2002 of the 3rd respondent. Counsel for the Petitioner:MR.M.VENKATESWARLU Counsel for the Respondent No.: GP FOR REVENUE The Court made the following : THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE R.SUBHASH REDDY WRIT PETITION NO : 2204 of 2003 O R D E R This writ petition was listed for hearing on 09-06-2009. As there was no representation when the matter was called, it was directed to be listed for ‘dismissal’. Today though the writ petition is listed under the caption “ for dismissal”, there is no representation on behalf of the petitioner. Hence, the writ petition is dismissed for non-prosecution. No order as to costs. _______________________ R.SUBHASH REDDY,J 10th June 2009 YVL