IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) TUESDAY, THE TWENTY FIRST DAY OF JULY TWO THOUSAND AND NINE PRESENT THE HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE SRI ANIL R. DAVE AND THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE RAMESH RANGANATHAN WRIT PETITION NO : 14478 of 2009 Between: Shaik Bahauddin, S/o. Abdul Nabi, Aided Arabic High School, Guntakal, Ananthapur District. ..... PETITIONER AND 1 State of A.P. rep by its Special Chief Secretary, Minorities Welfare Deptt., Secretariat, Hyderabd. 2 The District Collector, Ananthapur, Ananthapur District. 3 Sri Syed Abdul Sattar Lateefi, R/o. D.No.9/299, Sofia Street, Guntakal, Ananthapur 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 in the nature of Mandamus or otherwise declaring the G.O.M.S NO.4 Minorities Welfare Department dt.6-2-2008 issued by the 1st respondent as arbitrary, illegal, discriminatory, unconstitutional violation Article 14 of the Constitution of India and ultra vires to Sec. 2 of the Govt. Kazi Act, 1880 apart from against the public interest and set aside the same. Counsel for the Petitioner: MR. P. V. KRISHNAIAH Counsel for the Respondent Nos.1 and 2: G.P. FOR GENERAL ADMINISTRATION Counsel for the Respondent No.3: None Appeared The Court made the following : ORDER: (per the Hon’ble the Chief Justice Sri Anil R. Dave) This is a pubic interest litigation wherein G.O. Ms. No.4, dt.6.2.2008 has been challenged. By virtue of the aforesaid G.O., respondent No.3 has been appointed as an Additional Kazi for Guntakal Town. It is not in dispute that the aforesaid G.O. was challenged in a writ petition being W.P. No.6616 of 2008. Being aggrieved by the order dt.29.8.2008 passed by the learned Single Judge in the said writ petition, Writ Appeal No.1468 of 2008 was filed and by an order dt.6.2.2009, the said appeal has been allowed whereby the order passed by the learned Single Judge has been quashed and set aside and the validity of the impugned G.O. has been upheld. In the circumstances, especially when the validity of the impugned G.O. was examined by a Division Bench of this Court and as the Division Bench has upheld the G.O., in our opinion, it would not be proper for this Court to look into the legality of the G.O. At this stage, learned Advocate appearing for the petitioner has submitted that the petitioner would like to approach the Division Bench for review of its order. It would be open to the petitioner to do so. The petition stands disposed of with no order as to costs. _______________ ANIL R. DAVE, CJ _______________________ RAMESH RANGANATHAN, J 21.7.2009 bnr