APHC010138342010 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3459] MONDAY,THE SEVENTEENTH DAY OF NOVEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SMT JUSTICE SUMATHI JAGADAM WRIT PETITION NO: 26292/2010 Between: 1. VESAPOGU CHINNA MATHAIAH, S/O. DANAIAH UN EMPLOYEE R/O. 2-24, CHRISTIANPALEM PEDDA ARAVEEDU VILLAGE AND MANDAL, PRAKASAM DISTRICT ...PETITIONER AND 1. M/S BHARAT PETROLEUM CORPORATION LTD, REP. BY ITS TERRITORY MANAGER, L.P.G. BOTTLING PLNAT & TERRITORY OFFICE N.H. 7, 217/6, KH STONE PB NO.: 10, B. CAMP, NEAR LAKSHMIPURAM VILLAGE, 2. THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR, PRAKASAM DISTRICT, AT ONGOLE 3. THE TAHASILDAR, PEDDA ARAVEEDU MANDAL, PRAKASAM DISTRICT 4. KINNERA PRABHAKAR RAO, S/O. CHINNA VENKATAIAH R/O. 3-29A, SANIKAVARAM VILLAGE, PEDDA ARAVEEDU MANDAL, PRAKASAM DISTRICT 2 ...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 todirection more particularly one in the nature of writ of Mandamus declaring the action of respondents in not cancelling the LPG distributorship of the 4th respondent at Pedda Araveedu Village, Pedda Araveedu Mandal, Prakasam District as illegal, arbitrary and consequently direct the respondents 1 to 3 to take necessary steps for cancellation of LPG distributorship of 4th respondent, and pass IA NO: 1 OF 2010(WPMP 33572 OF 2010 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 operationof the appointment of 4th respondent for distributorship of Pedda Araveedu Village, Pedda Araveedu Mandal, Prakasam District, pending disposal of the above Writ petition and pass Counsel for the Petitioner: 1. TENE PANDU RANGA RAO Counsel for the Respondent(S): 1. G ELISHA 2. GP FOR REVENUE 3. O MANOHAR REDDY(SC FOR APTRANSCO) 4. V V SATISH 3 The Court made the following ORDER: Since there was no representation on behalf of the learned counsel for the petitioner on 11.08.2025, the matter was listed on 18.08.2025 under the caption ‘for dismissal’. Thereafter, the matter was again listed on 10.09.2025. Even on that day there was no representation for the petitioner. Hence, the matter was listed today under the same caption. Today when the matter is called, there is no representation for the petitioner. It appears that the learned counsel for the petitioner is not interested to prosecute the case. Therefore, the Writ Petition is dismissed for non-prosecution. There shall be no order as to costs. As a sequel, miscellaneous applications pending, if any, shall stand closed. __________________________________ JUSTICE SUMATHI JAGADAM Dated: 17.11.2025 ANS 4 188 THE HONOURABLE SMT JUSTICE SUMATHI JAGADAM WRIT PETITION NO: 26292/2010 Dated: 17.11.2025 ANS