APHC010146782002 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3332] FRIDAY,THE TWENTY SIXTH DAY OF SEPTEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE RAVI CHEEMALAPATI WRIT PETITION NO: 19444/2002 Between: 1. C.VENKATARAMANA.TIRUPATHI., - ...PETITIONER AND 1. EX OFFICER T T DI CHITTOOR ANOTHER, - ...RESPONDENT 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 IA NO: 1 OF 2002(WPMP 24416 OF 2002 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 IA NO: 1 OF 2004(WPMP 12852 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 permit the petitioner to amend the prayer by including the following order (i) declare the proceedings in ROC no TL1/7950/2000 dt 26-11-2002 IA NO: 2 OF 2004(WPMP 15497 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 stay all further proceedings of promotions to the post of Draughtsman Grade-II along with other candidates pending disposal of the wp IA NO: 1 OF 2006(WPMP 20015 OF 2006 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 expedite the hearing of WP No. 19444 of 2002 and pass Counsel for the Petitioner: 1. N SIVA REDDY Counsel for the Respondent: 1. V R MACHAVARAM 2. C SRINIVASA BABA The Court made the following: THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE RAVI CHEEMALAPATI WRIT PETITION NO: 19444/2002 ORDER: Sri M.Siva Ram, learned counsel representing Sri N.Siva Reddy, learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner is not in contact with them for a long time and they have no instructions in the matter. 2. Since the matter pertains to the year 2002, the party should invariably be in contact with his advocate, however, in the present case, the petitioner had not been pursuing the case through his advocate, which shows that the petitioner had no interest in pursuing the matter. Hence, the Writ Petition is liable to be dismissed. 3. Accordingly, the Writ Petition is dismissed for non-prosecution. However, if the petitioner feels that the cause still survives, he can file appropriate application within a period of two (02) months. There shall be no order as to costs. As a sequel, miscellaneous applications, pending if any, shall stand closed. _____________________________ JUSTICE RAVI CHEEMALAPATI Date: 25th September, 2025 RKS