APHC010631972004 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3506] THURSDAY,THE SIXTH DAY OF NOVEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE CHALLA GUNARANJAN WRIT PETITION NO: 4275/2004 Between: 1. M/S WAKSMAN SELMAN PHARMACEUTICALS PVT LTD, 10/343-4, ADIMURTHYNAGAR, ANANTAPUR, REP. BY ITS MANAGING DIRECTOR, SRI K. ANAND, S/O K. RANGAIAH CHETTY, AGED 49 YRS, R/O ANANTAPUR. ...PETITIONER AND 1. THE AUTHORITY UNDER MINIMUM WAGES ACT KADAPA 1, AND LABOUR OFFICER, KADAPA, KADAPA DISTRICT. 2. SRI Y JANARDHAN REDDY, S/O LATE Y. SIVARAM REDDY, R/O H.NO. 2/727-1, UPSTAIRS, NEHRU NAGAR, KADAPA. ...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 toto call for the records from the 1st respondent in M.W. Case No.125 of 2001 and issue an appropriate Writ, Order or Direction more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus and set aside the order passed by the 1st respondent in M.W. Case No. 125 of 2001, dated 10-2-2004, holding the same as illegal, unjust, contrary to law, arbitrary, perverse and without jurisdiction, and also in violation of principles of natural justice and grant all consequential benefits, IA NO: 1 OF 2004(WPMP 5615 OF 2004 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 operation of Order passed by the 1st respondent in M.W. Case No. 125 of 2001, dated 10-2-2004, Counsel for the Petitioner: 1. A K JAYAPRAKASH RAO Counsel for the Respondent(S): 1. GP FOR LABOUR 2. S V RAO The Court made the following: THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE CHALLA GUNARANJAN WRIT PETITION No.4275 of 2004 ORDER: When the matter was called on 22.09.2025, there was no representation on behalf of the petitioner, as such, this Court directed the matter to be listed under the caption ‘for dismissal’. Even today, when the matter is called, there is no presentation on behalf of the petitioner. It appears that the petitioner is not interested in pursuing the writ petition. Therefore, this writ petition is dismissed for non-prosecution. No costs. As a sequel, miscellaneous petitions pending consideration, if any, in this case shall stand closed. _______________________ CHALLA GUNARANJAN, J 06.11.2025 SS