THE HON’BLE Ms. JUSTICE G. ROHINI WRIT PETITION No.13586 OF 2010 Dated: 11.08.2010 Between : 1. Musku Ramana Reddy … Petitioner And 1. The Municipal Chairperson, Municipal Council, Adilabad, Andhra Pradesh., and another. … Respondents THE HON’BLE Ms. JUSTICE G. ROHINI WRIT PETITION No.13586 OF 2010 ORDER : The petitioner who is a practising advocate in the Courts in Adilabad District filed this writ petition seeking a declaration that the action of the 1st respondent in not placing the bio-data of the applicants for appointment of the Standing Counsel, Adilabad Municipality in the agenda of the General Body Meeting of the Municipal Council, Adilabad is arbitrary and illegal. I have heard the learned counsel for both the parties. The material available on record shows that the 2nd respondent – The Commissioner, Municipal Council, Adilabad – vide letter dated 7.10.2009 invited applications from the local Bar Association, Adilabad for appointment of the Standing Counsel for the Adilabad Municipality. Pursuant thereto seven advocates including the writ petitioner submitted their applications before the last date fixed for receiving the applications. The petitioner alleges that even after receipt of the said applications, the 1st respondent did not include the issue of appointment of the Standing Counsel in the agenda of the General Body Meetings of the Municipality. It is pleaded that on account of the failure of the respondents to consider the said issue, no Standing Counsel could be appointed in spite of the fact the term of the existing Standing Counsel expired on 19.10.2009. Hence this writ petition seeking a Mandamus to declare the action of the respondents as arbitrary and illegal. In the counter-affidavit filed by the 1st respondent – Chairperson, Municipal Council, Adilabad, it is stated that though the General Body Meetings were proposed, the same were adjourned without deciding any matters due to the bundh call given by the Joint Action Committees of Telangana. It is also stated that the present Standing Counsel was re-appointed twice by passing unanimous resolutions in the General Body Meetings of the Council as the performance of the Standing Counsel was satisfactory. The 2nd respondent – The Commissioner, Adilabad Municipality - in his counter-affidavit stated that all the seven applications received from the Bar Association, Adilabad was placed before the 1st respondent on 2.3.2010 for approval of note for placing the matter before the Council. However the file was returned by the Chairperson on 18.5.2010 with orders for issue of fresh notification to invite applications from advocates. As could be seen, the petitioner is only an applicant for consideration as the appointment of the Standing Counsel and therefore it cannot be said that he has acquired any legally enforceable right to challenge the alleged inaction on the part of the respondents. Though it is pleaded that the existing standing counsel is being continued even after the expiry of the term, admittedly the petitioner is not challenging his continuation and he is not even impleaded as a respondent to this writ petition. At any rate, in the counter-affidavits it is stated by the respondents that it was decided to issue a fresh notification to invite applications from the advocates. Viewed from any angle, the relief as prayed for cannot be granted and accordingly the Writ Petition is dismissed. No costs. _____________ G. ROHINI, J. Dt. 11.08.2010 gbs