APHC010430592012 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3310] THURSDAY, THE THIRTEENTH DAY OF MARCH TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE DR JUSTICE K MANMADHA RAO WRIT PETITION NO: 11308/2012 Between: G.s.p. Thyagaraj ...PETITIONER AND State Bank Of Hyderabad and Others ...RESPONDENT(S) Counsel for the Petitioner: 1. S VENKATESHWARLU Counsel for the Respondent(S): 1. The Court made the following Order: The Writ Petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, seeking the following relief: “…..to issue a writ, order or direction more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus declaring the action of the Respondent vide Letter No.PPG/Gr.III/2011-12/1271 dated 24-02-2012 rejecting the claim of the Petitioner as arbitrary, illegal, unjust, unreasonable and against the principles of natural justice and direct the Respondents to pay the damages of Rs.2,50,000/- (Rupees two lakhs fifty thousand only) and to reimburse the interest charged on loans, total aggregating Rs.4,22,000/- (Rupees four lakhs twenty two thousand only)….” 2 2. On a perusal of the docket proceedings, this Court observed that, on 19.04.2012, learned counsel for the petitioner sought time for getting instructions as this Court has held that “Relief for damages sought for is, prima facie, a matter for adjudication before the civil court.” The matter was then directed to be listed on 26.04.2012 in the “Motion List”. When the matter was listed on 26.04.2012, none appeared for the petitioner and the matter was directed to be listed after vacation under the caption “for dismissal”. Subsequently, the matter was listed before several benches, but none appeared for the petitioner, and the matter was listed before this Court on 06.03.2025. 3. This Court, vide order, dated 06.03.2025 has passed the following docket order: “None appears for the petitioner. On earlier occasion also none appears for the petitioner. Post on 13.03.2025. No further time will be granted.” 4. Although this matter was posted with the condition that “no further time will be granted”, when the matter was called for hearing today, none appeared on behalf of the petitioner either personally or through advocate. It seems that the petitioner is not interested to prosecute the case. 5. Therefore, the Writ Petition is dismissed for non-prosecution. There shall be no order as to costs. 3 6. As a sequel thereto, the miscellaneous petitions, if any, pending in this writ petition shall stand dismissed. ________________________ DR. K. MANMADHA RAO, J BMS