IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) MONDAY, THE TWENTIETH DAY OF OCTOBER TWO THOUSAND AND EIGHT PRESENT THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE C.V.RAMULU WRIT PETITION No.6746 of 2008 Between: Annam Guravamma & Krishna Murthy College, Sattenapalli, Guntur Dist Rep.by its Secretary/ Correspondent A.V Brahmam S/o.Krishna Murthy R/o.Sattenapalli, Guntur Dist ..... PETITIONER AND 1 Chillapalli Balakrishna Murthy S/o.Sambasiva Rao R/o.Ambedkar Nagar, near FCI, Sattenapalli, Guntur Dist. 2 The Presiding Officer, Labour Court, Guntur. 3 State Bank Of Hyderabad, rep. by its Branch Manager Stattenapalli Branch, Guntur Dist .....RESPONDENTS Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying that in the circumstances stated in the Aﬃdavit ﬁled herein the High Court may be pleased to issue writ order or direction more particularly one in the nature of writ of Mandamus to declare the order dt.7-1-2008 passed in E.P.No.1/2007 in I.D.No.85 of 1995 on the ﬁle of the 2 nd respondent, as illegal, arbitrary and consequently set aside the same by directing the 3rd respondent to permit the petitioner to operate the accounts bearing Nos.52102208135, 5210226705, 52102206705, 52102206727 and 7601447 and to grant such other relief or reliefs. Counsel for the Petitioner: MR.N.V.R.AMARNATH (Not present) Counsel for Respondent No.1: MR. M. PITCHAIAH Counsel for Respondent No.2: GP FOR LABOUR Counsel for Respondent No.3: - NONE - The Court made the following: THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE C.V. RAMULU WRIT PETITION No.6746 OF 2008 ORDER: When the matter came up for hearing on 04.09.2008, none appeared for the petitioner and there was no representation on its behalf. Therefore, the matter was directed to be posted under the caption ‘for dismissal’. Even on the subsequent dates of hearing i.e. on 11.09.2008, 17.09.2008 and 15.10.2008, there was no representation on behalf of the petitioner and the matter was ﬁnally adjourned to today. Even today, none appears for the petitioner nor there is any representation on its behalf. Therefore, the writ petition is dismissed for non- prosecution. No order as to costs. ___________________ JUSTICE C.V. RAMULU 20th October, 2008. IBL