IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) TUESDAY, THE SIXTEENTH DAY OF SEPTEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND EIGHT PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE GHULAM MOHAMMED and THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE G.BHAVANI PRASAD WRIT PETITION NO : 6111 of 1999 Between: T.Gopi Srinivas S/o.T.Applakonda District Cooperative Central Bank Visakhapatnam. ..... PETITIONER AND 1 The General Manager District Cooperative Central Bank Visakhapatnam. 2 The Chairperson, District Cooperative Central Bank Visakhapatnam. 3 The Govt.of A.P Rep.by its Special Secretary,Finance&Planning Secretariat Hyderabad. .....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 a writ,order or direction more in the nature of Writ of Mandamus to declare Act 27/98, whereunder it is said that one has to complete 5 years of service on 25-11-93 for regularisation of the NMR's Daily Wage, Contingent, etc., as illegal, arbitrary, irregular, unconstitutional, no nexus to the object to be sought, against the Supreme Court judgment in SLP (Civil) 27275-27277/95 Dt.6-2-98, AP High Court judgment Reported in 1997 (1) SLR 503, unconstitutional, equals being treated as unequals and accordingly set aside the Act 27/98 a n d unconsequently direct the respondents to regularise the services of the petitioner, and pass such other order or orders. Counsel for the Petitioner:MR.K.R.SRINIVAS Counsel for the Respondent No.: MR.T.NIRANJAN REDDY The Court made the following : HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE GHULAM MOHAMMED AND HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE G.BHAVANI PRASAD Writ Petition No.6111 of 1999 ORDER: (Per Hon’ble Sri Justice Ghulam Mohammed) None appeared for the petitioner on the last three occasions and on 11-9-2008, when none appeared for the petitioner, the writ petition was directed to be listed under the caption ‘for dismissal’. Even though the writ petition is listed today under the caption ‘for dismissal’, when the case is called, none appears for the petitioner nor is there any representation on his behalf. In the circumstances, the conduct of the petitioner indicates that he is not interested to prosecute the matter. The writ petition is therefore dismissed for non-prosecution. ___________________________ GHULAM MOHAMMED, J. ________________________ G.BHAVANI PRASAD, J. 16-09-2008 Bsc