IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) FRIDAY, THE TWENTIETH DAY OF JUNE TWO THOUSAND AND EIGHT PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE B.SESHASAYANA REDDY WRIT PETITION NO : 3018 of 2007 Between: Smt.Krotha Venkat Naga Kumari W/o.Yeturi Venkata Subba Reddy Andhra University, R/o.H.No.31-30-35/2, Narayana Street, Dabagarden, Visakhapatnam. ..... PETITIONER AND 1 The Commissioner-cum-Election Officer, Greater Visakhapatnam Municipal Corporation, Visakhapatnam. 2 The REturning Officer, Ward No.28, Greater Visakhapatnam Municipal Corporation, Visakhapatnam. 3 The District Collector, Visakhapatnam District, Visakhapatnam. 4 The state Election Commissioner, Tank Bund, Hyderabad. .....RESPONDENT(S) Petition under Article 226 of the constitution of India praying that in the circumstances stated in the Affidavit filed herein the High Court will be pleased to to issue a writ, order or direction more particularly one in the nature of writ of mandamus declaring the action of the respondents in declaring the names in the Final List of Contesting Candidates to the Greater Visakhapatnam Municipal Corporation contrary to the sec. 41 (2) of Municipal Corporation of Hyderabad Act, 1955 as well as the Provision of Rules 12 (2) of the Municipal Corporation of Hyderabad ( Elections of Mayor, Members and Election Petitions ) Rules, 1987, as illegal, arbitrary, null and void and consequently direct the respondents to issue the listof contesting Candidates in alphabetical order following the SEc. 41(2) of the Act, and pass such other order or orders. Counsel for the Petitioner:MR.M.BRAHMA REDDY Counsel for the Respondent No.: GP FOR REVENUE The Court made the following : Form-NIC-OGS/WP{KURR} HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE B.SESHASAYANA REDDY WRIT PETITION No.3018 of 2007 ORDER: This writ petition has been filed assailing the action of the respondent in not issuing the list of contesting candidates in alphabetical order. The Learned standing counsel for Municipal Corporation, Visakhapatnam, appearing for the respondents, submits that the election has been held in the year 2007 itself, and hence, the relief sought for in the writ petition has become infructuous. There is no representation on behalf of the writ petitioner. In that view of the matter, writ petition is dismissed as infructuous. No costs. ______________________ June 19, 2008 KVR