M.Anjana Devi, W/O Palguna, v. Commissioner,

THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE M.SEETHARAMA MURTI Writ Petition No.17664 of 2010 and 19451 of 2011 ORDER:

When WP.No.17664 of 2010 came up for hearing on 21.01.2016, this Court passed the following order:

"There is no representation for the writ petitioner. Sri V.Narsimha Goud, learned standing counsel for the 1st respondent would submit that this writ petition is filed to direct the first respondent to consider the representation dated 23.04.2010 of the petitioner and that the first respondent had already considered and rejected the said representation by proceedings dated 17.01.2011. He further submits that this Court, in writ orders dated 25.10.2013 passed in W.P.No.34579 of 2011, had considered similar issue as is involved in this writ petition and dismissed the said writ petition and therefore, there is no merit in this writ petition and that no cause survives for adjudication in this writ petition. List this writ petition on 22.01.2016 under the caption "For Dismissal" along with W.P.No.19451 of 2011."

When both the writ petitions came up for hearing today, there is no representation for the writ petitioner. It indicates that the petitioner is not interested in pursuing the writ petitions.

The learned Standing Counsel for GHMC appearing for the respondents 1 and 2 and the learned counsel, who filed an application for impleadment of the proposed 3rd respondent as the 3rd respondent in WP.No.19451 of 2011 are present.

The learned Standing Counsel appearing for the respondents 1 & 2 had reiterated the submissions made on 21.01.2016, which are extracted supra.

Recording the said submissions and having regard to the fact that there is no representation for the writ petitioner the Writ Petitions are

dismissed for default. There shall be no order as to costs. As a sequel, miscellaneous petitions pending, including the petition for impleadment filed in WP.No.19451 of 2011, shall stand closed.

__________________ M. SEETHARAMA MURTI, J 04.02.2016 Vjl