APHC010676942018 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3333] MONDAY, THE 7th DAY OF SEPTEMBER 2026 PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SMT JUSTICE V.SUJATHA WRIT PETITION NO: 32658/2018 Between: 1. B. GOVINDA RAO,, S/O DEMUDU, AGED ABOUT 57 YEARS, R/O D.NO.13-171, RRV PURAM, GOPALAPATNAM, VISAKHAPATNAM DISTRICT. ...PETITIONER AND 1. THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH, REP. BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY, SOCIAL WELFARE DEPARTMENT, SECRETARIAT BUILDINGS, VELAGAPUDI, AMARAVATHI, GUNTUR DISTRICT, A.P. 2. RATHTRIYA ISPAT NIGAM LIMITED, VISAKHAPATNAM STEEL PLANT, VISAKHAPATNAM REP. BY ITS GENERAL MANAGER(P.P) 3. ASST GENERAL MANAGER MECH FMD, VISAKHAPATNAM STEEL PLANT, VISAKHAPATNAM. 4. THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR, VISAKHAPATNAM. 5. THE JOINT COLLECTOR AND DISTRICT LEVEL SCRUTINY COMMITTEE, O/O COLLECTOR, VISAKHAPATNAM ...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 issue Writ Order or Direction especially one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus declaring the show cause notice issued by the 3rd respondent in proceedings No.WK/FMD/115541 dt.04-08-2018 is illegal, arbitrary, one 2 VS,J W.P.No.32658 of 2018 without jurisdiction and consequently set aside the same and further direct the respondents 2 and 4 not to proceed against the petitioner in view of the orders passed in IA No.1 of 2018 in WP No.19631 of 2018 dt.14-06-2018 and pass IA NO: 1 OF 2018 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 suspend the show cause notice issued by the 3rd respondent in proceedings No.WK/FMD/115541 dt.04-08-2018, pending disposal of the main writ petition and pass Counsel for the Petitioner: 1. CH RAVINDER Counsel for the Respondent(S): 1. GP FOR REVENUE (AP) 2. V SUBRAMANYAM SC FOR RINL (MA) 3. V SUBRAMANYAM SC FOR RINL The Court made the following: 3 VS,J W.P.No.32658 of 2018 ORDER: When the writ petition came up for hearing on 17.08.2026, there was no representation on behalf of the petitioner, as such, the matter was posted to 31.08.2026. Even on 31.08.2026, when the matter was called, there was no representation on behalf of counsel for the petitioner, hence, the matter was directed to be posted on 07.09.2026 under the caption ‘for dismissal’. Today, though the matter is listed under the caption ‘for dismissal’, there was no representation on behalf of the petitioner. It seems that the petitioner is not evincing any interest in pursuing the matter. In view of the same, this writ petition is dismissed for default. There shall be no order as to costs. Consequently, Miscellaneous Petitions, if any, pending in this Petition shall stand closed. _____________________ JUSTICE V.SUJATHA 07.09.2026 Gss