IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) FRIDAY, THE EIGHTEENTH DAY OF APRIL TWO THOUSAND AND EIGHT PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY WRIT PETITION NO : 8558 of 2008 Between: Deendayal Welfare Association ( Regd.No. 3244/90 ) Rep. by its Secreatary, T.Maisaiah, S/o. NBalaNarasaiah R/o. A-214, First Phase, Alwyn Colony, Kukatpally, Ranga Reddy District. ..... PETITIONER AND 1 The Inspector of Police, Kukatpally Police Station, Cyberabad, RR District 2 The Commissioner of Police, Cyberabad, Gachibowli, Ranga Reddy District. 3 The Director General of Police, Lakdilapool, Hyderabad. 4 The Secretary, Govt. of A.P., Home Dept., Secretariat, Hyd. .....RESPONDENTS Counsel for the Petitioner:MR.SREENATH KONDAPALLY Counsel for the Respondents: AGP FOR HOME The Court made the following : ORDER: This writ petition is filed for a writ of mandamus to declare interference of respondent No.1 with the elections of the petitioner association as illegal and contrary to order, dated 23.01.2006 passed in O.P.No.230 of 2004 on the file of II Additional District Judge, Ranga Reddy District at L.B.Nagar. Heard Sri Sreenath Kondapally, learned counsel for the petitioner and perused the record. The averments contained in the affidavit filed in support of the writ petition reveal that O.P.No.230 of 2004 filed before the learned II Additional District Judge, Ranga Reddy District, was disposed of by the said Court on 23.01.2006 wherein a direction was given to the petitioner and two others to convene Annual General Body Meeting to hold elections for the Executive Committee of the petitioner association. The petitioner alleged that with the unlawful interference of respondent No.1, the rival group claimed holding of elections and questioning the validity of the said elections, the petitioner filed O.P.No.302 of 2008 before II Additional District Judge, Ranga Reddy District seeking invalidation of the same. According to the petitioner, the said O.P. is pending. On the above admitted facts, I am of the view that the petitioner is not entitled to invoke the jurisdiction of this Court to restrain respondent No.1 from interfering with the elections of the petitioner association. On the petitioner’s own showing, elections were already held and its validity is questioned by it before the competent Court. Therefore, I fail to find any purpose in petitioner seeking a declaration that respondent No.1 is not entitled to interfere with the elections of the petitioner association. Moreover, the very validity of elections itself is subject matter of the O.P. before the civil Court. This writ petition is wholly misconceived and is accordingly dismissed. As a sequel to dismissal of main petition, WPMP.No.11328 of 2008 filed by the petitioner for interim relief is disposed of as infructuous. C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY, J 18th APRIL, 2008 kvni