P. Madhav Rao v. The Greater Hyderabad Municipal Corporation

THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE M.SEETHARAMA MURTI Writ Petition No.1248 of 2009 ORDER:

When the matter came up for hearing on 09.11.2015, this Court passed the following order:

'Earlier, it was reported to this Court that the learned counsel for the petitioner is no more and hence, this Court directed a notice to be issued to the petitioner.

The note of the Registry on the proceeding sheet would show that notice was sent to the petitioner and the same was returned after due service. But, no vakalat is filed.

Hence, list the matter under the caption 'For Dismissal' on 18.11.2015.' Despite listing the matter today under the caption 'For Dismissal', there is no representation for the petitioner. It indicates that the petitioner is not interested in prosecuting the writ petition. Therefore, the Writ Petition is dismissed for default. There shall be no order as to costs.

Miscellaneous petitions, pending if any, in the writ petition shall stand closed.

__________________ M. SEETHARAMA MURTI, J 22.01.2016 Vjl