APHC010022722021 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH (Special Original Jurisdiction) MONDAY ,THE THIRD DAY OF FEBRUARY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE RAVI CHEEMALAPATI WRIT PETITION NO: 1618/2021 Between: Kavuri Samba Siva Rao and Others State Of Andhra Pradesh and Others Counsel for the Petitioner(S): 1. M SOLOMON RAJU Counsel for the Respondent(S): 1. GP FOR REVENUE The Court made the following: ORDER In view of the submission made by learned counsel for the petitioners that he has given no objection vakalat to the petitioners, the Registry is directed to issue notice to the petitioners. The endorsement made by the office dated 28.01.2025 shows that not and 8 to 14 and the notice sent to petitioner no.1 was returned with endorsement ‘rejected’, which is deemed service of notice. Despite the same, the petitioners did neither appear before this Court nor choose to put up IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) MONDAY ,THE THIRD DAY OF FEBRUARY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE RAVI CHEEMALAPATI WRIT PETITION NO: 1618/2021 Kavuri Samba Siva Rao and Others ...PETITIONER(S) AND State Of Andhra Pradesh and Others ...RESPONDENT(S) Counsel for the Petitioner(S): Counsel for the Respondent(S): The Court made the following: In view of the submission made by learned counsel for the petitioners that he has given no objection vakalat to the petitioners, the Registry is notice to the petitioners. The endorsement made by the office dated 28.01.2025 shows that notice was served on petitioner nos.2,4 and 8 to 14 and the notice sent to petitioner no.1 was returned with endorsement ‘rejected’, which is deemed service of notice. Despite the same, the petitioners did neither appear before this Court nor choose to put up IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH [3332] THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE RAVI CHEEMALAPATI ...PETITIONER(S) ...RESPONDENT(S) In view of the submission made by learned counsel for the petitioners that he has given no objection vakalat to the petitioners, the Registry is notice to the petitioners. The endorsement made by the ice was served on petitioner nos.2,4 and 8 to 14 and the notice sent to petitioner no.1 was returned with endorsement ‘rejected’, which is deemed service of notice. Despite the same, the petitioners did neither appear before this Court nor choose to put up their appearance through a counsel. This shows that they are not interested in prosecuting the case. In view of the above, this writ petition is dismissed for non-prosecution. There shall be no order as to costs. Pending miscellaneous petitions, if any, shall stand closed. Interim orders, if any, shall stand vacated. JUSTICE RAVI CHEEMALAPATI RR