IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) WEDNESDAY, THE TWENTY FIFTH DAY OF MARCH TWO THOUSAND AND NINE PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE RAMESH RANGANATHAN WRIT PETITION NO.18424 of 2001 Between: 1 Thota Sangameswr Rao, S/o.Venkat Narayana, R/o.Tiruvuru, Tiruvuru Mandalam, Krishna District. 2 Nandadapu Venkateswara Rao, S/o.Gopaiah, R/o.Tiruvuru, Tiruvuru Mandalam, Krishna District. 3 Shaik Gani, S/o.Khasim, R/o.Tiruvuru, Tiruvuru Mandalam, Krishna District. 4 Goda Nagabhushanam, S/o.Narsaiah, R/o.Tiruvuru, Tiruvuru Mandalam, Krishna District. 5 Vhevikani Venkata Rama Rao, S/o.Prakash Rao, R/o.Tiruvuru, Tiruvuru Mandalam, Krishna District. 6 Yandrati Kanakadurga Prasad, S/o.Ramaiah, R/o.Tiruvuru, Tiruvuru Mandalam, Krishna District. ...PETITIONERS AND 1 The District Collector, Krishna at Machilipatnam. 2 The Executive Officer, Gram Panchayat, Tiruvuru, Krishna District. 3 The District Panchayat Officer, Krishna, Divisional Panchayat Officer, Nuzvid. ...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 respondents in trying to demolish the shop/sheds belonging to the petitioners in the nook corner of Vegetable Market, Tiruvuru as illegal, arbitrary and against to the principles of Natural justice and violative of Article 19 of the Constitution of India and consequently direct the respondents herein to permit the petitioners to continue their business and to grant such other relief or reliefs as this Hon'ble Court deems fit and proper in the circumstances of the case. Counsel for the Petitioners: MR.V.S.R.CHOUDARY Counsel for the Respondents: MR.KOWTURU VINAYA KUMAR The Court made the following: THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE RAMESH RANGANATHAN WRIT PETITION NO.18424 of 2001 ORDER: As none appeared for the petitioners on 19.03.2009, the matter was directed to be posted “For Dismissal”. Today, though the Writ Petition is listed under the caption “For Dismissal”, neither the counsel for the petitioners is present nor there is any representation on their behalf. Hence, the Writ Petition is dismissed for non-prosecution. _______________________ (RAMESH RANGANATHAN, J) 25th March 2009 RRB