APHC010131442005 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3332] THURSDAY,THE SEVENTEENTH DAY OF JULY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE RAVI CHEEMALAPATI WRIT PETITION NO: 16843/2005 Between: 1. K. RAMA MURTHY, TIRUPATI., S/O. SUBRAMANYAM, TTD SERVICE, WORKING IN TTD DALYANAMANDAPAM, SRINIVASA MANGAPURAM, TIRUPATI, R/O. TIRUPATI. ...PETITIONER AND 1. THE TIRUMALA TIRUPATHI DEVASTHANAMS AND 2 OTHERS, TIRUPATI, CHITTOOR DISTRICT, REP. BY ITS EXECUTIVE OFFICER. 2. THE TTDS TRUST BOARD, TTDS ADMINISTRATIVE BUILDINGS, TIRUPATI, REP. BY ITS CHAIRMAN. 3. THE GOVT OF A P REP BY ITS PRL SECRETARY, REVENUE ( ENDTS.) DEPT., SECRETARIAT, HYDERABAD. ...RESPONDENT(S): Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed therewith, the High Court may be pleased to Issue a writ, order or direction, more particularly one in the nature of writ of Mandamus, declaring the Proceedings Roc.No.B5/47308/95 dt. 22.7.2003, and the letter of even reference dt. 9.12.2004 of the 1st respondent and the Resolution No.475 dt. 17.11.2004 said to have been passed by the TTDs Trust Board, as arbitrary, discriminatory, illegal and contrary to the Judgment dt. 24.6.1996 in WP.No.22469 of 1995 and with all other consequential benefits, including seniority, and other benefits monetary and otherwise and pass. IA NO: 1 OF 2005(WPMP 21413 OF 2005 Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased grant interim directions directing the 1st respondent to continue me in any superior service, pending disposal of the W.P. Counsel for the Petitioner: 1. V JAGAPATHI Counsel for the Respondent(S): 1. A PRABHAKAR SARMA SC FOR TTD 2. . The Court made the following: ORDER: On 24.04.2025 and 03.07.2025, there is no representation for the petitioner and the matter is posted under the caption for dismissal. 2. Despite the matter being listed under the caption ‘for dismissal’, today also, there is no representation for the petitioner. This shows that the petitioner is not interested in prosecuting the case. 3. Accordingly, the Writ Petition is dismissed for non-prosecution. There shall be no order as to costs. As a sequel, miscellaneous applications, pending if any, shall stand closed. _____________________________ JUSTICE RAVI CHEEMALAPATI Date: 17th July, 2025 RKS