APHC010247712007 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3332] THURSDAY,THE ELEVENTH DAY OF SEPTEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE RAVI CHEEMALAPATI WRIT PETITION NO: 3775/2007 Between: 1. SMT. ARUNDATHI,, W/O. K. BAYAPPA REDDY, UNEMPLOYEE, R/O. JANGAMREDDIPALLI VILLAGE, NARPALA MANDAL, ANANTAPUR DISTRICT. ...PETITIONER AND 1. THE DIST COLL CUM THE CHAIRMAN OF THE DIST SEL COMM 2, SELECTION COMMITTEE OF ANGANWADI WORKERS/ HELPERS, ANANTAPUR, ANANTAPUR DISTRICT. 2. THE PROJECT DIRECTOR, DISTRICT WOMEN AND CHILD DEV. AGENCY, ANANTAPUR, ANANTAPUR DISTRICT. 3. K LAKSHMI DEVI, W/O. K. RAJAIAH, R/O. JANGAMAREDDIPALLI VILLAGE, NARPALA MANDAL, ANANTAPUR DISTRICT. ...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 a Writ of Mandamus declaring the impugned proceedings No. 1652/A/06 dated 30-1-2007 issued by the 1st respondent in favour of 3rd respondent as illegal, arbitrary, unreasonable and violation of Articles 14, 16 & 21 of the Constitution of India and set-aside the same and consequently direct the respondents to issue appointment orders to the petitioner basing on her eligibilities as prescribed norms in the Notification dated 17-2-2006 and pass such other order or orders as this Hon'ble Court may deem fit and proper in the circumstances of the case. IA NO: 1 OF 2007(WPMP 4824 OF 2007 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 to grant stay of all further proceedings in pursuant to impugned proceedins No. 1652/A/06 dated 30-1-2007 issued by the 1st respondent and pass such other order or orders Counsel for the Petitioner: 1. O UDAYA KUMAR Counsel for the Respondent(S): 1. JALAKAM SAMPATH KUMAR 2. GP FOR WOMEN DEV, CHILD WELFARE The Court made the following: ORDER: Sri O.Uday Kumar, learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner is not in contact with him for a long time, as such, prayed to pass appropriate orders. 2. Since the matter pertains to the year 2007, the party should invariable be in contact with her advocate when the matter is pending, however, the petitioner had not been pursuing the case through her advocate, it shows that the petitioner had no interest in prosecuting the matter. Hence, the Writ Petition is liable to be dismissed. 3. Accordingly, the Writ Petition is dismissed for non-prosecution. However, if the petitioner feels that the cause still survives, she can file appropriate application within a period of two (2) months. There shall be no order as to costs. As a sequel, miscellaneous applications, pending if any, shall stand closed. _____________________________ JUSTICE RAVI CHEEMALAPATI Date: 11th September, 2025 RKS