IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) WEDNESDAY, THE TWENTY FOURTH DAY OF JUNE TWO THOUSAND AND NINE PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE GHULAM MOHAMMED and THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE VILAS V. AFZULPURKAR WRIT PETITION NO : 21076 of 1998 Between: 1 Yarlagadda Chalapathi Rao S/o Rattaiah R/o Gundupalem, Bandar Mandal, Krishna District, 2 Yarlagadda Koteswara Rao S/o Anjaiah R/o Gundupalem, Bandar Mandal, Krishna District. 3 Vadlamudi Venu S/o Krishna Rao R/o Gundupalem, Bandar Mandal, Krishna District. 4 Venigalla Panduranga Rao S/o Parandhamaiah R/o Gundupalem, Bandar Mandal, Krishna District. 5 Naraharisetti Achuta Rao S/o Mangaiah R/o Chinnapuram, Bandar Mandal, Krishna District. 6 Thota Gangamma W/o Sareswara Rao R/o Chilakalapudi (V), Bandar Mandal, Krishna District ..... PETITIONER(S) AND 1 The State of A.P. Rep. by its Principal Secretary, Revenue Department, Secretariat, Hyderabad 2 Principal Secretary, Irrigation Department, Govt. of A.P., Secretariat, Hyderabad 3 The District Collector, Vijayawada Krishna Dist. 4 The Mandal Revenue Officer, Bandar, Krishna Dist. .....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 issue an appropriate writ, order or direction more particularly in the nature of Writ of Mandamus declaring the provisions of water tax (Amendment) Act 13/97 in so far is relates to enhancement of water tax rates and in making the Act applicable to Aqua-culture without providing water through any Govt. source of irrigation as illegal, arbitrary and voilative of Art.19 (1) (g) of Constitution of India and consequently declare the amendment introduce to A.P. Water tax by Act.13/97 as un- enforceable and pass Counsel for the Petitioner:MR.CH.ANJI REDDY Counsel for the Respondent No.: GP FOR REVENUE The Court made the following : ORDER: (Per Hon’ble Sri Justice Ghulam Mohammed) Though the matter is listed under the caption “for dismissal” none appeared for the petitioner. Hence, the writ petition is dismissed for non-prosecution. No order as to costs. _____________________ GHULAM MOHAMMED, J _____________________ VILAS.V.AFZUL PURKAR, J June 24, 2009. KK/DS