APHC010384042002 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3332] THURSDAY,THE SEVENTH DAY OF AUGUST TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE RAVI CHEEMALAPATI WRIT PETITION NO: 17290/2002 Between: 1. SMT.Y.SATYAVATHI, D/O SRI APPALA SWAMY HIUSEHOLD DUTIES BC- D SEETHANAGARAM VILLAGE, JAMMI MANDAL, VIZIANAGARAM DIST. ...PETITIONER AND 1. THE DIRECTOR ICDS INTEGRATED CHILD DEVELOPMENT PROGRAM, REP BY ITS DIRECTOR HYDERABAD. 2. SUPERVISOR ICDS, VIZIANAGARAM COLLECTORATE OFFICE, VIZIANAGARAM. 3. THE CONVENOR ICDS, S.KOTA, VIZIANAGARAM DIST. 4. THE SARPANCH ANNAMRAJUPAT GRAM PANCHYAT, JAMMI MANDAL, VIZIANAGARAM DIST. 5. ALAMANDA SURYA KUMARI, D/O SIMHADRI SEETHANAGARM VILLAGE, JAMMI MANDAL, VIZIANAGARAM DIST. ...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 an order or direction more particularly in the nature of WRIT OF MANDAMUS declaring the action of the respondent authorities in appointing the 5th Respondent as Anganwadi Karyakartha under ICDS program contrary to the notification issued by the 3rd Respondent as arbitrary, illegal and null and void and against the norms of the public life and principles of natural justice and set aside the appointment of the 5th Respondent and to pass. IA NO: 1 OF 2002(WPMP 21702 OF 2002 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 stay the appointment of the 5th Respondent as Anganwadi Karyakartha under the ICDS program, pending disposal of the above W.P. and pass. Counsel for the Petitioner: 1. VENKATESWARA RAO GUDAPATI Counsel for the Respondent(S): 1. GP FOR WOMEN DEV CHILD WELFARE 2. GP FOR WOMEN DEV CHILD WELFARE The Court made the following order: Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the writ petitioner is not in touch with him and could not get instructions from her. 2. The matter is of the year 2002. The submission made by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the writ petitioner is not in touch with him shows that the petitioner is not interested in prosecuting the matter. 3. In view of the above, this Writ petition is dismissed for non-prosecution. If at all the petitioner feels that cause in this writ petition survives, she can move an appropriate application. There shall be no order as to costs. Pending miscellaneous petitions, if any, shall stand closed. ________________________ JUSTICE RAVI CHEEMALAPATI BRS