IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) THURSDAY, THE THIRD DAY OF MARCH, TWO THOUSAND ELEVEN PRESENT: THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY WRIT PETITION No.32044 of 2010 Between: Potala Aadilakshmi. … Petitioner And State of A.P., rep., by its Principal Secretary (Panchayat Raj) Hyderabad & others. … Respondents Counsel for the petitioner : Sri P. Rajkumar Counsel for respondents 1&2: GP for Panchayat Raj Counsel for respondent No.3: Sri A. Rama Rao This Court made the following: THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY WRIT PETITION No.32044 of 2010 ORDER:- This writ petition is filed for a Mandamus to declare the special meeting held on 27.11.2010 for discussing No Confidence Motion against respondent No.3, as null and void. I have heard Sri P. Raj Kumar, learned counsel for the petitioner, learned Government Pleader for Panchayat Raj for respondent Nos.1 and 2 and Sri A. Rama Rao for respondent No.3. The premise on which this Writ Petition is filed is that the petitioner, who is one of the MPTC members of Duggupuram Village, Hiramandalam Mandal, was kidnapped by respondent No.3 and her accomplices and thereby prevented her from attending the special meeting scheduled to be held on 27.11.2010. Having regard to this allegation, this Court, by order dated 21.12.2010, directed respondent No.2 to hold an enquiry and submit a report. Accordingly, respondent No.2 submitted his report, wherein he has stated that he has recorded the statements of the petitioner, her son, respondent No.3 and two others including another MPTC member by name Savara Mallesu, who was also stated to have been kidnapped. On consideration of the statements of these persons, respondent No.2 has opined that the allegation that the petitioner was kidnapped is not established. It has also come out from the record that a criminal case is pending on the complaint given by the petitioner. Unless the petitioner establishes her allegation in a competent Court of law, it is not possible for this Court to grant the relief claimed in this Writ Petition. Having regard to the disputed questions of fact, which cannot be adjudicated by this Court in exercise of its jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the Writ Petition is dismissed. As a sequel to dismissal of the Writ Petition, WPMP.No.40738 of 2010 filed by the petitioner for interim relief is also dismissed. _____________________________ C.V. NAGARJUNA REDDY, J Date: 03.03.2011 ES