APHC010133702016 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3310] TUESDAY ,THE ELEVENTH DAY OF FEBRUARY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE DR JUSTICE K MANMADHA RAO WRIT PETITION NO: 18489/2016 Between: Mr Nallamotu Venkata Syam Kumar, S/o. Nallamotu Srirama ...PETITIONER AND The State Of Andhra Pradesh Rep By Its Principal Secretary and Others ...RESPONDENT(S) Counsel for the Petitioner: 1. T LAKSHMI NARAYANA Counsel for the Respondent(S): 1. GP FOR REVENUE (AP) 2. GP FOR ENDOWMENTS (AP) 3. ELEVATED AS JUDGE 4. N SUBBA RAO The Court made the following Order: This Writ Petitionis filed, under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, seeking the following relief: “….to issue an appropriate writ, order or direction more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus to call for the records and set aside the proceedings 2 L.Dis.No.A4/4713/2016, dated 13.05.2016 issued by the Assistant Commissioner of Endowments, Guntur District and by declaring that without the consent of and approval of the Founder members Committee of “Chandrappa Cheruvu” tank no work of any nature can be undertaken in “Chandrappa Cheruvu” tank in Survey No.41, Ac.16.48 cents, situated at Bhallukhanudupalem Village and Gram Panchayath, Kakumanu Mandal, Guntur District ,State of Andhra Pradesh….” 2. Heard Mr.K.Ashok, learned counsel representing Mr.T.Lakshmi Narayana, learned counsel for the petitioners and Mr.P.Srinivas, learned Assistant Government Pleader for Endowments, for the respondent(s). 3. On hearing, learned counsel for the petitioners submits that they have given No-Objection Vakalat to the petitioner three months back itself. 4. Upon perusal of the material on record, it is observed that, since this writ petition is filed in the year 2016 and after a lapse of 9 years, even the learned counsel for the petitioner on record has given No-Objection Vakalat to the petitioners three months back, till date the petitioner has not taken any steps either to engage a new counsel or to appear in person to prosecute the case. It seems that the petitioner is not interested in prosecuting the case. 5. Therefore, 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. _____________________________ Dr. K. MANMADHA RAO, J BMS