← Library
High Court for State of TelanganaWP/32240/2011dismissed for default

Mrs. Banuka Narmada v. The Union Of India

2015-09-07C.Praveen Kumar2 pages

HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE C. PRAVEEN KUMAR WRIT PETITION No. 32240 of 2011 ORDER:

The present writ petition came to be filed seeking issuance of writ of mandamus declaring the action of the respondents in not acting on the representation of the petitioners dated 31.08.2011 and 28.09.2011, as illegal and contrary to the judicial precedents. Initially Sri J.C.Francis, Advocate filed the writ petition on behalf of the petitioners. Subsequently on 14.07.2015 a representation was made by Sri J.C.Francis that one year back the parties took no objection vakalath from him and also submits that on the last occasion, when the matter was listed, he informed the same to the petitioners, but there is no response from them. Hence, the Registry was directed to issue fresh notice to the writ petitioners. On 18.08.2015 the matter was again listed.

On that day it was brought to the notice of the Court by the Registry that the notice sent to the first petitioner was served and insofar as the second petitioner is concerned the same is un-served. Though the notice was served on the first petitioner there is no representation on his behalf. Having regard to the said circumstances this Court directed the Registry to print the name of the petitioners in the cause list. Thereafter the matter was listed to 21.08.2015. On that day it was adjourned by a week awaiting service of notice. Again on 04.09.2015 the Registry was directed to comply with the order dated 18.08.2015 and it was directed to be listed to today. On all the occasions there was no representation on behalf of any of the petitioners.

The learned counsel for the respondents, who appeared on every adjournment, submits that nothing survives in this writ petition as the Board against whom the complaint was made is dissolved. In view of

the above, it appears that, the petitioners are not evincing interest in prosecuting the matter.

Accordingly, the writ petition is dismissed for non-prosecution. There shall be no order as to costs.

Consequently, miscellaneous petitions, if any, pending in this Writ Petition shall stand closed.

_________________________ JUSTICE C. PRAVEEN KUMAR 07.09.2015 gkv