IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) FRIDAY, THE TWENTY SIXTH DAY OF JUNE TWO THOUSAND AND NINE PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE V.ESWARAIAH and THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE P.SWAROOP REDDY WRIT PETITION NO : 35490 of 1998 Between: Rep. by Secretary, B.L.K. Prasada Rao, s/o. Veerabasavaiah A.P. Rytu Sangam, Repelle Division Committee Kiskindapalem, Kolluru Mandal,Guntur District ..... PETITIONER AND 1 The Government of Andhra Pradesh, rep. by its Secretary, Department of Energy, Environment, Science & Technology Secretariat, Hyderabad. 2 The Collector, Guntur District, Guntur. 3 The Andhra Pradesh State Electricity Board, Chairman, Vidyut Soudha, Somajiguda, Hyderabad 4 The Superintending Engineer, The Andhra Pradesh State Electricity Board, 4/8, Brodipet, Guntur. 5 The Divisional Engineer, APSEB, Tenali, Guntur District. 6 The Assistant Accounts Officer, Electricity Revenue Office, Repalle, Guntur District 7 The Assistant Accounts Officer, Electricity Revenue Office, Tenali, Guntur 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 to issue a Writ or Order or direction, more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus directing the 1st Respondent herein to pass orders on the representation submitted by the petitioner dated 11.12.1998 making remission to the electricity charges payable by the farmers who are having agricultural electricity service supply in the Kolluru and Bhattiprolu mandals of Guntur District and pass such other order or orders as it may deem fit and proper in the circumstances of the case. Counsel for the Petitioner:MR.A.SATYA PRASAD Counsel for the Respondent No.: O.MANOHAR REDDY(SC FOR APTRANSCO) The Court made the following : ORDER: (Per Sri Justice V.Eswaraiah) When the matter has been taken up for hearing on 25.6.2009, neither the petitioner nor his counsel were present and there was no representation on their behalf. Therefore, the matter was directed to be posted on 26.6.2009 under the caption ‘For Dismissal’. Even today also, though the matter is listed under the caption ‘For Dismissal’ neither the petitioner nor his 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. ______________ V.ESWARAIAH, J. _________________ P.SWAROOP REDDY, J. 26.6.2009 kpr