IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) FRIDAY, THE FIFTH DAY OF JUNE TWO THOUSAND AND NINE PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE B.SESHASAYANA REDDY WRIT PETITION NO : 11255 of 2002 Between: N.Prashant Kumar (Prashant Kumar Narukulla) S/o.Rajeswar Rao R/o.1-1-114/2/N/1, Ravindranagar, Adilabad. Presently R/o.C/o.D.Ram Reddy, Retd.Health Inspector, Ammanabolu X Roads, Narketpally, Nalgonda Dist. ..... PETITIONER AND 1 The Govt.of A.P. Rep.by its Secretary, Higher Education Secretariat, Hyderabad. 2 The Principal Kamineni Institute of Dental Sciences, Sreepuram, Narketpally, Nalgonda District. 3 N.T.R.University of Health Sciences Rep.by its Registrar Vijayawada. R3 is impleaded as per court order dt.27-5-2002 in WPMP 17437/2002. .....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 writ of Mandamus directing the respondent No.2 herein to cancell the provisional Admission of the petitioner into Ist year BDS course which was made vide Admission No.019095/Academic/2001-02, dt.20-5-2002 and also return the original certificates which were submitted at the time of seeking admission into Ist year BDS course forthwith without insisting the petitioner to pay the entire fees which is payable for remaining 3 years course to eneble the peittioner to seek admission into Ist year MBBS course under NRI quota in Arupadaiveedu Medical College, Pandicherry by duly declaring the action of the 2nd respondent in insisting him to pay the entire fee payable for entire BDS course (remaining 3 years ) without any authority under law is nothing but arbitrary, illegal, unjustified and violative of Art.14 of the Constutution of India and pass Counsel for the Petitioner:MR.V.RAVI KIRAN RAO Counsel for the Respondent No.: GP FOR HIGHER EDUCATION The Court made the following : THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE B.SESHASAYANA REDDY W.P.NO. 11255 OF 2002 ORDER On 01-05-2009 when the writ petition came up hearing there was no representation on behalf of the petitioner. Therefore, it was directed to be listed to this day under the caption ‘for dismissal’. Despite the matter being listed under the caption ‘for dismissal’ there is no representation on behalf of the petitioner. The conduct of the petitioner indicates that he is not interested in pursuing this writ petition. Accordingly, this writ petition is dismissed for non-prosecution. No order as to costs. ______________________________ Justice B. Seshasayana Reddy 5th June, 2009. KM THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE B.SESHASAYANA REDDY W.P.NO. 11255 OF 2002 5th June, 2009.