IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) WEDNESDAY, THE TWENTY THIRD DAY OF JULY TWO THOUSAND AND EIGHT PRESENT THE HON'BLE MS JUSTICE G.ROHINI WRIT PETITION NO : 12557 of 2006 Between: M.Venugopal Reddy S./o Jayarami Reddy Resident of Kokkarayapalli village, Chennur Mandal, Kadapa District ..... PETITIONER AND 1 The Revenue Divisional Officer, Kadapa Kadapa District 2 The Returning Officer, Mandal Parishad, Chennur Kadapa District 3 C.Vasudeva Redddy S/po. Yerikala Reddy Resident of Kokkarayapalli village Chennur Mandal, Kadapa District .....RESPONDENTS 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 issue a writ order or direction more particularly one in the nature of writ of mandamus declaring the order of the 1st respondent in his Ref.E/323/2006 dated 20.6.2006 confirming the orders of the 2nd respondent dated 18.6.2006 in accepting the nomination of the 3rd respondent for MPTC member ward No.6 of Kokkarayapalli village in Chennur Mandal, of Kadapa district though the 3rd respondent was the Director of Water Users Association, Chennur and further the resignation of the 3rd respondent was not accepted by competent authority as illegal, unjust arbitrary, discriminative and against statutory provisions including section 32 of A.P.Farmers Managerment of Irrigation System and also section 18 of A.P.Panchayat Raj Act 1984 and also against Article 14 of the Constitution of India and consequently set aside the acceptance of nomination of the 3rd respondent by the 1st and 2nd respondents fo MPTC Member, Ward No.6 of Kokkarayapalli village in Chennur Mandal, Kadapa District and pass such other order or orders as this Hon`ble court may deem fit and proper in the circumstances of the case. Counsel for the Petitioner: MR.L.J.VEERA REDDY Counsel for the Respondent No.: GP FOR PANCHAYAT RAJ & RURAL DEV. The Court made the following : THE HON’BLE Ms. JUSTICE G. ROHINI WRIT PETITION No. 12557 of 2006 O R D E R: It is represented by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the cause in the writ petition does not survive for consideration. Accordingly, the writ petition is dismissed as infructuous. No costs. ______________ G. ROHINI,J Date: 23-07-2008 KLP