IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) MONDAY, THE EIGHTEENTH DAY OF FEBRUARY TWO THOUSAND AND EIGHT PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY WRIT PETITION NO : 26920 of 2006 Between: Prakash Patil Rathod S/o Baliram R/o 1-2-3 to 1-2-8, Bokkalaguda, Adilabad-AP., ..... PETITIONER AND 1 The Municipal Council, Adilabad rep by its Chairman. 2 The Municipal Council, Adilabad repby its commissioner, .....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 a appropriate Writ of mandamus, order or direction by declaring the inaction ofthe 1st respondent in not hearing theappeal and the illegal action of the 2nd respondent dt 29-3-2004, as illegal, arbitrary, unjust discriminatory, unreasonable, without jurisdiction, opposed to public policy, violative of fundamental rights guaranteed under art. 14 19 21 of Constitution of India and also violative of principles of natual justice and set a side the impugned proc. No. A1/36/2004 dt 29-3-2004 with costs, in alternative it is prayed that this Hon'ble Court may be pleased to directthe 1st respondnet to hear and dispose ofthe appeal filed on dt 12-5-2004 in accordance with the law within 2 months by giving due opportunity to the petitioner. andpass such other orders as deemed fita and ptoper bythis Hon'ble court in the circumstances of the case. Counsel for the Petitioner: None The Court made the following : THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE C.V. NAGARJUNA REDDY WRIT PETITION No.26920 of 2006 ORDER: This writ petition is filed for a writ of mandamus to declare the action of respondent No.1 in not hearing the appeal and proceedings dated 29.03.2004 of respondent No.2, as illegal, arbitrary and violative of Articles 14, 19 and 21 of the Constitution of India. There is no representation for the petitioner both in the forenoon and again in the afternoon. It is therefore reasonable to presume that the petitioner is not interested in prosecuting his cause in the writ petition. The writ petition is therefore dismissed in default. As a sequel to dismissal of the writ petition in default, WPMP.No.34585 of 2006 filed by the petitioner for interim relief is also dismissed. C.V. NAGARJUNA REDDY, J Date: 18.02.2008 ES To 1.2CCs to 2.2CD copies Form-NIC-OGS/WP{TRT}