IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) THURSDAY, THE ELEVENTH DAY OF JUNE TWO THOUSAND AND NINE PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE GODA RAGHURAM WRIT PETITION NO : 22105 of 2002 Between: Mailipalli Nooka Ratnam, W/o. Venkateshwarlu, Hindu, Narsapuram Gram Pnchayat, Visakhapatnam District, Andhra Pradesh. ..... PETITIONER AND 1 The District Colelctor, (Psnchayat Raj Department), Visakhapatnam, Andhra Pradesh. 2 The District Panchayat Officer, Psnchayat Raj Department, Visakhapatnam, Andhra Pradesh. 3 The Divisional Panchayat Officer, Narsipatnam, Visakhapatnam District, Andhra Pradesh. 4 Chelluri Nooka Ratnam, W/o. Devudu, Narsipatnam Gram Panchayat, Visakhapatnam District, Andhra Pradesh. .....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 issue an order, direction or writ more particularly one in the nature of WRIT OF MANDAMUS, declaring the order in Rc.No.1443/2002- A1, dated 17-10-2002, passed by the 1st Respondent herein as illegal, null & void and withou jurisdiction and consequentially set-aside the said order appointing the 4th Respondent herein as Temporary Sarpanch of Narsapuram Gram Panchayat, Visakhapatnam, in the interest of justice and equity and to pass Counsel for the Petitioner: MR.K.MANIK PRABHU Counsel for the Respondents: GP FOR PANCHAYAT RAJ & RURAL DEV. The Court made the following : Form-NIC-OGS/WP{KRD} HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE GODA RAGHURAM W.P.No.22105 of 2002 ORDER: Pursuant to the order of this Court, dated 17-04-2009, reitereated by the order of this Court dated 05-06-2009, the 1st respondent is present and the future presence of this respondent is dispensed with. 2. It is conjointly submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Government Pleader for Panchayat Raj, that the cause in this writ petition does not survive for adjudication since the term of the Upa Sarpanch of Narsapur Gram Panchayat, who was appointed as temporary Sarpanch by the impugned order, has expired. The 1st respondent had to be directed to appear in this Court because there was no counter filed for seven years in this writ petition instituted in the year 2002. 3. At long last, the 2nd respondent has filed a counter affidavit justifying the impugned order passed by the 1st respondent, but without any averment as to the reasons for belated filing of the counter-affidavit. 4. Be that as it may, since the cause in the writ petition does not survive for adjudication, the writ petition is dismissed as infructuous. No costs. ______________________ 11th June 2009 KVR