APHC010476862017 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3331] THURSDAY, THE THIRD DAY OF APRIL TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE SUBBA REDDY SATTI WRIT PETITION NO: 21699/2017 Between: 1. MOHAMMAD ARIFULLA, S/O. LATE MOHAMMAD HABIBUFLAH, AGED 48 YEARS, R/O. D.NO.10/531-1, BELLAM MUNDRY ST., KADAPA, YSR DISTRICT. ...PETITIONER AND 1. THE ANDHRA PRADESH STATE WAKF BOARD, VIJAYAWADA, YSR KADAPA DISTRICT, REP. BY ITS CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER. 2. THE INSPECTORAUDITOR OF WAKFS, KADAPA, YSR KADAPA 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 Writ of Mandamus, in-action on the part of 1st respondent in not considering my representation dated 14.06.2017 seeking to extend the lease period granted in my favour on 27.1.2011 as extended from time to time in the light of the recommendations made by the 2nd respondent on 22.4.2016 even after repeated requests as illegal, arbitrary and is in violation of principles of Natural Justice and fair play, apart from violation of Articles 19 and 21 of the Constitution of India and consequently direct the respondents to consider and pass IA NO: 1 OF 2017(WPMP 26699 OF 2017 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 direct the 1st respondent to consider and pass appropriate orders on the representation submitted by the petitioner dated 14.6.2017 seeking extension of his lease period, pending disposal of the above WP, and pass Counsel for the Petitioner: 1. V BRAHMAIAH CHOWDARY Counsel for the Respondent(S): 1. The Court made the following: :: ORDER :: The above writ petition is filed to declare the action of respondent No.1 in not considering the representation made by the petitioner dated 14.06.2017 to extend the lease, as illegal and arbitrary. As there was no representation on behalf of the petitioner on 27.03.2025, the matter was directed to be listed on this day under the caption ‘for dismissal’. Even today also there is no representation on behalf of the petitioner. It appears that the petitioner is not interested in prosecuting the writ petition. Accordingly, the Writ Petition is dismissed for non prosecution. No costs. Miscellaneous petitions, if any pending, in this case, shall stand closed. ___________________________ JUSTICE SUBBA REDDY SATTI Date: 03.04.2025 TVN 117 HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE SUBBA REDDY SATTI WRIT PETITION No.21699 OF 2017 Date: 03.04.2025 TVN