IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) FRIDAY, THE SIXTH DAY OF FEBRUARY TWO THOUSAND AND NINE PRESENT THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE C.V.RAMULU WRIT PETITION NO : 715 of 2009 Between: B. Nagendra Varma S/o. Sanyasi Raju R/o. Bhimasingi Village, Jami Mandal, Vizianagaram District. ..... PETITIONER AND 1 The Principal Secretary Department of Mines and Geology Secretariat Buildings, Hyderabad. 2 The Director of Mines and Geology Burgula Rama Krishna Rao Bhavan Hyderabad. 3 The Deputy Director of Mines and Geology D.No. 10-50-21, Behind Varun Motors, Siripuram Junction, Visakhapatnam. 4 The Assistant Director of Mines and Geology Vizianagaram. 5 The Principal Secretary Department of Panchayat Raj Secretariat Buildigns, Hyderabad. 6 The District Panchayat Officer, Vizianagaram. 7 The Joint Collector, Vizianagaram 8 The Director (FAC) Ground Water Department, Hyderabad. 9 The Deputy Director (FAC) Ground Water Department, Vizianagaram. 10.The Executive Engiener, I & CAD (A/C) Vizianagaram Division, Vizianagaram. .....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 more particularly in the nature writ of Mandamus declaring the impugned actions of the respondents in not granting lease of sand quarrying to the petitioner as highly arbitrary and unconstitutional and consequently direct the respondents to grant lease of sand quarry in respect of Gopalapalli Reach, River Gostani, Srungavarapu Kota Mandal, Vizianagaram District within 15 days to the petitioner herein and pass such orders or orders. Counsel for the Petitioner:MR.T.M.K.CHAITANYA Counsel for the Respondents: (1)GP FOR LAND ACQUISITION (2) GP FOR MINES AND GEOLOGY The Court made the following : THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE C.V.RAMULU WRIT PETITION NO.715 of 2009 ORDER: Learned counsel for the petitioner addressed a letter, dated 05.02.2009, to the Registry stating that the petitioner does not want to prosecute the writ petition any further. In view of the above, the writ petition is dismissed as withdrawn. No order as to costs. _____________ C.V.RAMULU,J 06.02.2009 v v