APHC010787162013 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3331] WEDNESDAY,THE SECOND DAY OF JULY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE SUBBA REDDY SATTI WRIT PETITION NO: 28627/2013 Between: 1. GADDAM VENKATA SUBBA RAO,, SIO KOTESWARA RAO, AGED ABOUT 60 YEARS, PRESENTLY R/O KUMMARI BAZAR, NARSARAOPETA, GUNTUR DISTRICT. ...PETITIONER AND 1. GOVERNMENT OF ANDHRA PRADESH REP BY ITS PRINCIPAL, SECRETARY, HOME DEPARTMENT, SECRETARIAT, HYDERABAD. 2. THE SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE, GUNTUR TOWN, GUNTUR DISTRICT. 3. STATION HOUSE OFFICER, LALAPET POLICE STATION, LALAPET, GUNTUR, GUNTUR DISTRICT. 4. ANDHRA PRADESH SOUTHERN POWER DISTRIBUTION COMPANY, LTD., REP. BY ITS ASSISTANT ENGINEER (OPERATIONS) D2, GUNTUR, GUNTUR DISTRICT. 5. BATHULA RANGA RAO, S/O SUBBAIAH, AGED ABOUT 55 YEARS, R/O D.NO. 24-15-26, 4TH LANE, NALLACHERUVU, GUNTUR, GUNTUR DISTRICT. ...RESPONDENT(S): 2 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 toto issue any writ order or direction more particularly one in the nature of Mandamus declaring the inaction of the respondents in not taking any action on the petitioner's complaint dt. 26-04-2012 in protecting the petitioner's land and the inaction of the 3rd respondent in taking action basing on the complaint lodged by the petitioner and the action of the 4th respondent in issuing service connection in the name of the third parties is illegal, arbitrary and contrary to the fundamental principles enshrined in the Constitution of India and consequently direct the respondent No. 2 & 3 to protect the petitioner's land and set aside the proceedings issued by the 4th respondent vide Lr.No. AE/O/D-2 Guntur/F.Doc/D.NO. 702, dt. 23-082013 and to 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 2013(WPMP 35513 OF 2013 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 3rd respondent to take action against the 5th respondent restraining him for proceeding with the further construction in the petitioner land to avoid multiplicity of litigation Counsel for the Petitioner: 1. DILIP KUMAR SHIRODKAR Counsel for the Respondent(S): 1. GP FOR HOME 2. G VASANTHA RAYUDU 3. P VINOD KUMAR The Court made the following order: Since there was no representation on behalf of the petitioner when the matter was listed 26.06.2025, the matter was directed to be listed today under the caption ‘for dismissal’. 3 2. Despite the writ petition being listed today under the caption ‘for dismissal’, there is no representation for the petitioner either in the forenoon or in the afternoon. It seems the petitioner is not interested in prosecuting the writ petition. 3. Hence, this writ petition is dismissed for non-prosecution. No costs. Miscellaneous petitions pending, if any, shall stand closed. ___________________________ JUSTICE SUBBA REDDY SATTI Date: 02.07.2025 KA 4 THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE SUBBA REDDY SATTI WRIT PETITION NO: 28627/2013 Date: 02.07.2025 KA