THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE C.V. NAGARJUNA REDDY WRIT PETITION No. 2020 of 2008 Dated: 05.02.2008 Between: Rondla Ramakrishna Reddy … Petitioner AND The Municipality, Siricilla, rep., through its Commissioner, Siricilla, Karimnagar District & another. … Respondents Counsel for the petitioner : Sri L. Prabhakar Reddy Counsel for respondent No.1 : Sri P. Radhakrishna SC for the Municipality THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE C.V. NAGARJUNA REDDY WRIT PETITION No. 2020 of 2008 ORDER:- This writ petition is filed for a writ of mandamus to declare the action of the respondents in entertaining the application of respondent No.2 for cancellation of mutation made in favour of the petitioner in respect of house bearing Nos.6-4-98, 6-4-99 and 6-4- 100 situated at Vidyanagar, Siricilla, Karimnagar District, as without jurisdiction and contrary to the provisions of the Andhra Pradesh Municipalities Act, 1965. Heard Sri L. Prabhakar Reddy, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri P. Radhakrishna, learned Standing Counsel for respondent No.1. The grievance of the petitioner is that respondent No.1, who mutated the name of the petitioner vide proceedings dated 14.05.2007, entertained the application of respondent No.2 and issued notice dated 22.01.2008 calling upon him to show cause why the earlier order of mutation shall not be cancelled. According to the petitioner, respondent No.1 has no jurisdiction to issue such a notice. Having heard the learned counsel for the petitioner, I am of the view that the dispute raised in this writ petition at this stage need not be gone into for the reason that on the petitioner’s own admission he made a detailed representation on 28.01.2008 in response to notice dated 24.01.2008 issued by respondent No.1. In my view, no cause of action has arisen at this juncture for the petitioner to approach this Court. The petitioner is free to raise all the legally sustainable objections before respondent No.1 including the one relating to the alleged lack of jurisdiction in him to cancel the mutation proceedings. In the event respondent No.1 passes an order adverse to his interest, petitioner shall be free to avail the appropriate remedy to question such an order. Subject to the above observations, the writ petition is disposed of. As a sequel to disposal of the writ petition, WPMP.No.2573 of 2008 filed by the petitioner for interim relief is disposed of as infructuous. _____________________________ C.V. NAGARJUNA REDDY, J Date: 05.02.2008 Note:- Issue CC in three days. B/o. ES